“The Italian Market of Plant Products: a short- lived ...

Corso d i Laurea Specia l is t ica in

Economia e Gest ione de l le Az iende

In ternat iona l Economics and Management

!! Prova F ina le d i Laurea

!

“The I ta l ian Market of P lant Products: a short-

l ived fashion or a new market segment?”

!!!

Relatore

Prof .ssa Mauracher Chr is t ine

!Laureando

Fanin Giovanni

Matr ico la 842510

!Anno Accademico

2013/2014

!!!!!!!Univers i tà

Ca’ Foscar i Venez ia

Dipar t imento

di Economia

e G e s t i o n e

delle Aziende

!!!!!!!

“The machine does not iso late us f rom

the great problems of nature but

p lunges us more deeply into them”

Antoine de Saint Exupèry

!

Index

Introduction 1

1. The Literature Background 7

2. The Evolution of Consumer Behavior 12

3. The Global Scenario in 2050: a new Malthusian Trap? 19

3.1 Expected Population in 2050 21

3.2 Future Urbanization Trends 29

3.3 Future Prospects for Nutrition 35

3.4 Land Availability in 2050 39

3.5 Water Availability in 2050 42

3.6 Agricultural Yields in 2050 45

3.7 Food Production in the Next Forty Years 47

3.8 Expectations for 2050 50

4. Plant Protein Sources 58

4.1 The History of Vegetable Proteins 64

5. The Italian Market of Vegetable Proteins Products 68

5.1 Market Value Analysis 71

5.2 Market Shares Analysis 76

5.3 Volume of Sales Analysis 81

5.4 Package Volumes of Sales Analysis 85

5.5 Price Variation Analysis 88

5.6 Distribution Channels Analysis 92

- " -i

!

6. Consumers’ Attitude Towards GMOs 96

Conclusions 101

Database Figures i

Market Variation Analysis i

Market Share Analysis ii

Market Volume Variation Analysis x

Packages Purchased Volume Variation Analysis xi

Price Variation Analysis xii

Distribution Channel Variation Analysis xiii

Bibliographic References xiv

Acknowledgments xxii

- " -ii

Int roduct ion

Proteins are polymer chains made of amino acids that represent essential

nutrients critical for growth and maintenance of the human body. Next to

water, proteins represent the most abundant substance in human body: not

only they are one of the building blocks of the body tissue and a fuel source

for cellular metabolism, but also they represent a fundamental component in

hormones, enzymes, blood cells and antibodies. This is the reason why all

the living creatures must assume proteins during their life.

Despite the critical role proteins play in life, differently to many other mammal

species, humans are forced to introduce proteins through their diet in order

to synthesize those essential amino acids that can not be biosynthesized by

the human body (Hermann, 2013).

When people think about proteins, they usually think about meat. Actually

this is a misleading heritage and a false stereotype of the past. In fact, both

plant and animal foods contain proteins, even if in different percentages and

compositions. Animal-derived foods, like meat, fish, eggs, and dairy

products, are large sources of proteins, but also plant foods are, despite

their protein content is not completed. Specifically, differently from animal

proteins, plant proteins contain only some of the nine essential amino acids

that humans cannot self-synthesize. As a consequence, people have to

combine different vegetable sources together in order to ensure the

adequate intake.

Nevertheless, recent studies and scientific analyses have confirmed that 1

plant proteins could be the answer for feeding a growing world population in

the next future. Experts see this shift as necessary in order to avoid all those

problems related to malnutrition, starvation, health and also environmental

sustainability, at least in part.

- " -1

See later for citations.1

According to a recent study (Jägerskong and Jønch-Clausen, 2012), it

seems very likely that the world’s population may have to switch almost

completely to a vegetarian diet over the next 40 years in order to avoid

catastrophic food shortages. This new theory is based on the fact that,

today, humans derive about 20% of their protein needs from animal-based

products. Unfortunately, this value may need to drop to just 5% in order to

feed the 9,5 billion people expected to be alive by 2050.

More in details, the issue highlighted by the two scholars is related to water

consumption, considering that, in order to produce the a given quantity of

proteins from animal sources, the water consumption is 5 to 10 times higher

than using vegetable sources.

Also the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition (2012), the corporate think tank

foundation of the worldwide known Italian pasta-maker, is stressing the

public opinion with the concept of a sustainable diet. Consumers have to be

more aware of their food choices, not only in relation to their own health, but

also considering the environment, given the ever stricter bond between man

and the nature. As a consequence, in order to meet nutritional needs of a

richer, growing, more urbanized world, consumers must become used to

new sustainable eating habits.

Out of this trend, the Barilla Foundation has proposed the Food and

Environment Double Pyramid Model (Figure 1), which reinforces the paradigm

of eating healthily in a sustainable environment.

This model demonstrates that an healthy, mediterranean style, diet is not 2

only healthier, but it also embodies a sustainable attitude towards the

environment. In fact, looking at the food pyramid of the model, people should

eat little red meat and, oppositely, abound in fruits and vegetables, which are

larger sources of fiber and contribute to the achievement of a sense of

satiety. Accordingly, looking at the environmental side of the Double Pyramid,

- " -2

The mediterranean style diet is usually consider as the food regime traditionally adopted by population living 2

in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Southern France and Greece.

red meat should be avoided also because it has a very high environmental

impact, while the environmental foot-print of fruits and vegetables is

negligible.

Figure 1: THE FOOD AND ENVIRONMENT DOUBLE PYRAMID MODEL

Source: Barilla Center For Food and Nutrition

The environmental issue related to meat consumption is an hot topic also for

the world-wide known scientific magazine “Science”, which already in 2012

published an article by Sid Perkins titled “There’s Cow in Your Smog” . The 3

author explained that the results of a study performed in South California by

the University of Boulder, blame cows for smog and not cars, as the large

majority of common people think. The problem is related to cattle wastes in

the area , which release ammonia in the atmosphere at levels between half 4

and three times the quantity released by all the car in the same region . This 5

- " -3

The article is available at: http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2012/05/scienceshot-theres-cow-your-smog3

The study estimates the number of cows in the area of South California at around 300.000 units in the 4

period analyzed.

The study estimates the number of cars in the area of South California at around 9,9 million units in the 5

period analyzed.

ammonia, once in the free atmosphere, reacts with the nitrogen oxides,

another polluting agent, producing ammonia nitrate, one of the worst

component of smog.

Back to the Barilla’s Double Pyramid, the educational nature of its theory is

well supported by a series of scientific publications.

Among them, the most impressive is the following study (Eshel and Martin,

2005). Starting from the the results published in 2000 by the United Nations-

sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Houghton et al.,

2001), which states that “there is new and stronger evidence that most of the

warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities”

and that “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on

global warming”, the two authors analyzed GHG emissions consequence in 6

people’s diets. Using previous studies and mathematical approaches applied

to the American population, they were able to calculate that, while for

personal transportation the average American uses from a minimum of

4.284.000 kcal/year to a maximum of 17.136.000 kcal/year, for food the

average is roughly 10.080.000 kcal/year considering only fossil energy

consumption and thus the sole CO2 emissions.

Moreover, the paper analyses different greenhouse gas emissions generated

by the same gross caloric consumption but obtained from different food 7

regimes, a plant-based and an animal-based . The conclusion is that a 8

person consuming an animal-based food regime causes the emissions

- " -4

Green House Gases.6

The gross caloric consumption is the sum of the energy consumed for a specific physical activity plus the 7

energy continually consumed for keeping the body alive (resting metabolism). In this case, The caloric intake is calculated for the year 2002 in the US The actual per capita food supply data are summarized in the Food Balance Sheet provided by FAOSTAT and available at: http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/browse/FB/FBS/E

The average US diet (here used as a proxy for a animal-based food regime) comprises 3.774 gross kcal, of 8

which 1.047 kcal are assumed from animal products. Oppositely, the vegan diet comprises the same total number of gross calories but obtained exclusively from plant-based food.

(direct and indirect) of 1.485 kg CO2-equivalent above the emissions

generated by a vegetarian diet (see also Duchin, 2004).

In conclusion of this brief introduction, it is important to point out the reasons

that stand behind this dissertation. Indeed, at the baseline there is the

curiosity of the author in understanding the reasons behind the outstanding

evolutionary path plant products have experienced in recent years, moving 9

from a niche market exclusivity of vegans and dieters, to the mainstream

consumption standards and habits of an ever enlarging share of the world

population.

Consequently, the aim of this dissertation is to analyze and to understand the

recent trend of this market in order to sort out, whether or not, plant

produtcs could be an at-par substitute source of proteins with respect to

traditional sources.

The analysis will be made from an economic and a marketing perspective,

with a specific focus to the Italian market. In other words, this study will try

to answer to the following question: will people (Italians) be used to eat tofu, seitan or veggy burger in the next decades? The answer will be given considering that a large part of the scientific

consensus is asking for a radical shift in the average human diet, in order to

face the expected population growth forecasts and the law of diminishing

returns that governs agriculture.

As a first step, this dissertation will summarize the scientific literature

available on the topic, highlighting the absence of a well defined lode of

economic publications on it.

Subsequently, the analysis will move on outlining the possible scenario world

will face by 2050 according the most prominent forecasts. More in detail, this

analysis will regard the future population size and composition, the expected

- " -5

The word “plant product” is used throughout the entire dissertation in order to indicate vegetable sources of 9

proteins and in opposition to non-plant sources like meat and fish.

level of urbanization, the future availability of arable land and water, without

neglecting to provide a quick overview on crops and meat future availability,

and finally focusing on the expected future trends in nutrition.

Afterwords, a brief description of vegetable protein products will be provided,

listing all the different products currently available on the Italian market. In

addition, and in order to better understand the trend experienced by plant

products, a brief historical analysis will be presented.

Moving at the core of the topic, the dissertation will analyze the current

market situation in Italy, in order to show which trend has being taken in

recent years by this market segment.

To complete the analysis, the dissertation will deal with the issue on

genetically modified organisms and the average European and Italian

consumer attitude towards this hot topic.

In the conclusive part, after a short summary of the main findings, the author

will try to answer to the initial question about the future of plant products

market segment, by giving a personal opinion on that.

- " -6

1. The L i terature Background

Despite the exponential growth plant products have experienced in the last

ten to five years in Western countries and the growing consciousness and 10

knowledge among consumers in relation to healthy food regimes and

sustainable behavior, the scientific world seems to be a little late on this

topic, as far as new marketing and economic publications are concerned.

Indeed, the mainstream literature related to this topic mainly comes from

nutritional and medical backgrounds. Accordingly, the publications found and

briefly summarized in this chapter are not merely and strictly related to

economics, but mainly to medical food, earth interactions, sustainable

development and also ethnology.

In one of these publications, which is focused on the ethnological

perspective of the issue, Mintz and Tan (2001) have examined the

consumption patterns of soybean curd in Hong Kong, where the history of 11

soy foods are part of the traditional cousin since three millennia. The study

clearly underlines the different approach to soy-based products the Hong

Kong population used to have, if compared to the Western attitude. In fact,

while in Hong Kong usually tofu is part of every dinner consumed at home

and not for special occasion, regardless of whether a person is vegetarian or

not, in the Western countries, tofu is mainly consumed by vegetarians or at

the Chinese/Asian restaurant.

In the last decade however, as a consequence of globalization, soy-food

consumption has changed significantly also in Hong Kong, with a sharp

decline in local production and, oppositely, with a rise in soy-food imports. In

spite of the fact that traditional practices still remain alive mostly among elder

- " -7

In Asia this trend is not interesting given that vegetable sources of proteins are traditionally at the basis of 10

everyday diet.

Literally the curd is the thick substance that forms in milk when it becomes sour. In this case it is uses as a 11

synonym of tofu, a food-grade product obtain from the coagulation of semi processed soybeans.

people, modern packaging technology and the rise of supermarket chains

have made the sale of soy products a global phenomenon.

At the end of this ethnographic study, Hong Kong appears to be the bulwark

of traditions, and, at the same time, a microcosmos of larger global trends.

In another study (Wansink et al., 2000), it was analyzed how product

perceptions, taste and consumers behavior are influenced by the presence of

a soy label on products sold in the US. The milestone from which this study

was developed was the well-known marketing experiment “Pepsi

Challenge” , through which it was demonstrated that visual cues can heavily 12

influence consumers’ choices.

Using the same approach, the authors have designed a 2 X 2 between-

subjects experiment where soy label (“contains 10 g of soy protein” versus 13

“contains 10 g of protein”) was crossed with a health claim (“may help

reduce the risk of heart disease” versus no health claim). Subjects were

randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions.

The experiment demonstrated that soy labeling negatively influences

consumer’s attitude towards the product. Interestingly enough however, it

was also observed that healthy claims have no influence on the consumer.

Following to this initial phase, with the aim of better interpret these dynamics,

the two scholars segmented the test population into four groups: the taste-

conscious, the health-conscious, the natural food lovers, and the dieters.

Recomputing the test, it emerged that, while soy labels and health claims

negatively bias the taste-conscious consumers’ perceptions, oppositely they

improve attitudes among health-conscious, natural food lovers, and dieters

- " -8

The “Pepsi Challenge” refers to the taste and marketing experiment PepsiCo Inc. run from 1975 by 12

encouraging shoppers in different public location to taste two blank cups: one containing Pepsi and one with Coca-Cola and then select which drink they prefer without knowing whether it was one product or the other. At the end of each experiment, the two brands were disclosed to the shopper. The results of the test leaned toward a consensus that Pepsi was preferred by more Americans. After this experiment was concluded, Coca Cola Inc. slightly modify the taste of its beverage in order to gain market share against its rival Pepsi in 1985.

This kind of experiment is also known as Phantom Ingredient Blind Test.13

consumers. Moreover, the two authors tried to provide a solution for foster

soy food consumption among the taste conscious segment. It consists in

advertising more other ingredients than soy, thus to override its negative

perception, and in emphasizing more soy’s health-related claims in order to

make US consumers more aware of soy’s potentials (Wansink, 1994,

Wansink, Michael, 1996).

Continuing with the summary of the literature related to plant products, a

survey made in the US (Wansink, Chan, 2001) found out that in 2001 there

was still a large part of the US population that was completely unaware of

soy’s health attributes, thus being unwilling to buy such products.

This discovery was obtained by surveying 770 US consumers on a national

base, and asking them which were the most important factors that trigger

the purchase and the consumption of a medical or functional food such as

soy . 39% of the respondents were not aware of any health attribute of soy 14

food, and another 4% declared that soy has no health benefit at all.

Oppositely, the remaining 57% of the surveyed population was already

conscious about health consequences related with soy consumption and the

large majority were considering soy products as rich in proteins (28%), with

low fats (24%), and low cholesterol levels (11%).

Very impressively, just 5% of the people were aware that soy can reduce the

risk of cancer.

Furthermore, the authors also suggest to link specific attributes with specific

health-related benefits in order to increase consumers’ knowledge about soy

properties and to boost soy products consumption.

Another analysis published by Carlssos-Kanyama and Lindèn (2001)

provided an interesting case study analysis of how Swedish food

consumption patterns have changed during recent decades. According to

- " -9

In order to describe medical and functional food, usually it is used the neologism “nutraceutical”, which 14

comprehends dietary supplements, herbal products and functional food.

the study, meat consumption has increased in Sweden, even if forecasts

expect a possible decline in meat consumption, given the fact that younger

generations are much more aware of environmental and health issues, and

are much more contaminated by foreign food trends and fashions.

Interestingly, also the lack of time and cooking skills are accounted as other

minor causes that will lead to a decline in meat consumption and an

opposite increase in plant products purchases in Sweden.

Shifting the perspective and focusing on meat consumption (and indirectly to

meat-substitutes like plant products), in his study Frank (2007) has adapted

the concept of technological lock-in (David 1985, Arthur 1989) to the

demand side of the economy, applying it to meat consumption.

Briefly, according to the author the consumers’ preferences and purchasing

choices are locked-in to a specific path of consumption, even if this has a

lower social utility for the consumer if compared to other alternatives. In the

specific case of meat, the author asserts that consumers buy meat despite

this choice is not Pareto efficient and the costs outweigh its benefits, given,

for example, the environmental consequences meat consumption embodies.

The author found out that the reasons why such an inefficient choice is made

are both at individual and social levels. In the former level, there are factors

like habits, tastes, culture and diet regimes. In the latter level, the author

cites mass-media influence and proved consumption patterns. For example,

this means that people buy meat instead of tofu or soy burger as a source of

proteins mainly because they are not used to that and to their tastes.

More recently, the interest of the economic institutions has grown, thus

increasing the level of attention of the general public to the topic, especially

in North America.

Accordingly, during the Convention “Soy 20/20: Unlocking the Value of Soy

Protein in Consumer Foods” hosted by the Guelph Food Technology 15

- " -10

http://www.soy2020.ca15

Centre in 2007 in Ontario (Canada), Hunter (2007) presented an interesting 16

analysis about the consumption patterns of soybean-based products in the

country.

These data, obtained through an online questionnaire applied by 1.008

Canadian adults, shows that 85% of the sample have changed their eating

habits in the five years prior to 2007 due to health reasons. 73% of the

Canadians interviewed have said they are prepared to pay more for healthy

foods; 85% of them usually connected soy to food (19%) and to beverage

(66%), and 25% of them claim they consumed soy as a food or beverage at

least once a month. Moreover, 71% of the sample rated soy products as

healthy, and 50% believe soy food could play a role in reducing obesity.

Finally, 36% of the surveyed said they were interested in combination of soy

and conventional food, thus confirming the willingness of the average

consumer to change his or her food regime towards a more healthy and

environmentally friendly one, without becoming a pure vegan.

These first data and survey results, together with all the papers and studies

cited above, beside constituting the crucial bedrock for all the further

developments of this dissertation, highlight the changing trends toward meat

that the average consumer is experiencing. Oppositely, it also clarifies the

raising key role vegetable sources of protein will play in the future, especially

in western diet regimes.

!

- " -11

http://www.gftc.ca16

2. The Evolut ion of Consumer Behavior

Taking and historical approach over consumer behavior, at the advent of the

human race people hunted animals and gathered roots in order to respond

to the need of feeding themselves and their families and thus to survive. In

that period food had only a nutritional dimension.

Only in the twentieth century, with the coming of new technological

innovations in agriculture, a larger share of world population was able to get

free from the anguish of nutrition as a primary need, and food started to be

associated with palate satisfaction and to acquire a more psychological and

emotional dimension. Beside, food started also to be associated with health,

not only of the consumer, but also of the environment, with consumption

patterns that today are always more focused on sustainability and

environmental-friendship (Pilati, 2004).

When speaking about consumer behavior, the classic marketing and

economical literature introduces the concepts of segmentation, composition,

de-structurization, polarization, t ime saving and energy waste of

consumptions, together with the dine-in versus dine-out dilemma and diet

convergence, which are all well known by the expert of the sector and thus

are not more deeply explained in this dissertation. In any case, when

analyzing new food consumption trends, it is important to remember that

those kind of patterns are characterized by a special series of dynamics,

where the most important turned out to be the Engel Law: the richer the

family, the smaller the percentage share of income spent on food is. Today

however, despite these concepts are still very actual, there are some

interesting new consumption trends that could help in understanding if plant

products will become a standard market segment or if it doomed to vanish in

few years.

- " -12

In recent years however, consumer behavior is dramatically changed.

Consumers nowadays are much more aware and conscious about what they

buy and, more specifically, about what they eat and drink. Regarding

nutrition, consumers knows that several disputes and open contrasts exists 17

in the world (Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, 2012):

- Fat versus thin: 155 millions people are overweight, while 146 millions

suffer starvation; - Too much versus too little: every year 29 millions people die because of

food excess, and other 36 millions people die because of absence of

food; - Lack of resources for everyone: 1 million people have not access to

food, and another 1 million people do not have access to potable

water; - Food versus feed: every year, 3 billions of farm animals consume one-

third of the world agricultural production; - Food versus energy: in the US, every year, 45% of the corn production

is used for making fuel (ethanol), while the remaining 55% is devoted to

food consumption.

In the light of that, the average consumer has developed a critical sense

towards food purchases, which definitely affects its behavior at the

supermarket or at the restaurant.

Out of this new behavior, a new market segment was born: that of the so-

called “L.O.H.A.S.” (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability). More in details,

the acronym L.O.H.A.S. describes a population segment derived from the

New Age generation, generally composed of a relatively upscale and well-

educated people, who belong to a particular market segment related to

sustainable living, ecological initiatives, social justice and health. From the

- " -13

All the data provided refer to 201217

marketing perspective, a L.O.H.A.S. person looks for products of high quality

that are also virtuous and healthy, like functional food products . 18

Researchers have reported a range of sizes of the L.O.H.A.S. market

segment. For example, the Worldwatch Institute reported that the US

L.O.H.A.S. market segment in the year 2006 was estimated at $300 billion,

approximately 30% of the total US consumer market. A study by the Natural

Marketing Institute showed that in 2007, 41 million Americans (19% of the

US population ) were included within the L.O.H.A.S. demographic, while in 19

Japan roughly 17 million adults or 12% of the population are L.O.H.A.S.

consumers.

As a consequence, even if the average consumer is not a L.O.H.A.S., at the

moment of choosing what to buy from the shelf of a supermarket she or he

first checks the product label before to buy, thus to better understand what

really there is inside.

Following this new trend, the European Union is replacing the current EU

general labeling rules, which have been in place since 2000 via a labeling

directive, with a new European Regulation on Food Information to 20

Consumers (FIC). It will enter completely into force in 2016.

Related to that, and to the attention Italian and European consumers already

have on food labeling, according to a survey sponsored by Ulrick & Short 21

and submitted to 2.000 European consumers, 70% of them have confirmed

they are already much more aware of their eating habits than they used to

be, indicating that they are more likely to pay attention to what is in their

- " -14

By definition, a functional food product is a food given an additional function, often related to health-18

promotion or disease prevention, by adding new ingredients or by increasing the quota of and existing one

In this case the US population is calculated at 251 million people19

The EU Regulation n. 1169/2011 on the provision of food information to consumers changes existing 20

legislation on food labeling including: mandatory nutrition information on processed foods; mandatory origin labeling of unprocessed meat, highlighting allergens in the list of ingredients, better legibility, requirements on information on allergens also cover non pre-packed foods including those sold in restaurants and cafés.

The Ulrick & Short Company is a British-owned clean label ingredient specialist.21

food. The survey also highlighted that consumers demand simpler labels

(75% of respondents) and fewer additives (45%), a tendency that is fully in

line with the L.O.H.A.S attitude.

Shifting to the topic of consumer attitude toward plant products, consumers

attraction towards specialty nutritional ingredients, the emergence of a

health-oriented market segment, and consumers’ ongoing interest in protein

consumption could be consider the new driving opportunities for the market.

It has been estimated (Sloan, 2014) that globally, functional food/beverage

sales topped $118 billion in 2012, up 5% from the previous year. The United

States of America is the most important market, Japan the second-largest

with sales of $22 billion, followed by the United Kingdom with sales of $8.08

billion and Germany at $6.4 billion. In 2013, China had the highest

expenditure on health and wellness retail products, followed by Brazil, the

United States, Russia, and Mexico. Indeed, with a fast-emerging middle

class, the worldwide potent ial for funct ional foods/beverages is

unprecedented.

As a consequence, meeting today's health and wellness food/beverage

demands has evolved into a process of delivering health benefits through a

combination of core whole and real food nutritional value and added

specialty health ingredients. According to the US research company Hartman

Group, in 2013 the top two attributes that made a food product good for

health and wellness and thus attractive to the most conscious consumer

segment were "ingredients added for special health benefits" and "higher in

nutrients” . Moreover, the research company found out that healthfulness is 22

also a reflection of a combination of attributes like freshly-made, free-of, no

additives, high quality, socially responsible, taking care, wellness.

According to a survey carried out by the International Food Information

Council Foundation (2013), 58% of US consumers thought a lot about the

- " -15

All the data relating this survey can be found at http://www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2014/april/22

features/toptentrends.aspx?page=viewall

healthfulness of their foods/beverages, 47% thought a lot about food

ingredients, and 40% frequently turned their thoughts to food safety. Eight in

10 adults made some effort to eat healthier during 2012, and one-third (34%)

made a lot of effort to eating better and healthier. Moreover, health influenced

the food purchase decisions of 64% of consumers, up from 61% in 2012. In

addition, the combination of nutritional benefits and culinary excitement are

the key to consumers' decisions to try new healthy food products.

As a direct consequence, seven out of the top 10 best-selling new US foods/

beverages introduced in 2013 had a “healthier-for-you” positioning claim.

Among them, the most frequent healthy claims were: “less/reduced calories”

and “sugar-free”, together with “added fiber/whole grain”, “natural/organic”

and “real fruit”.

What follows is a breakout of the top trends driving the market for foods and

beverages (Institute of Food Technologists, 2014).

I. Growing demand for specialty nutritional ingredients;

II. Clean label foods;

III. Real is now the most appealing food descriptor Right after fresh,

organic and made from scratch;

IV. The rise of the protein market;

V. Kid-specific products;

VI. Pharma foods (Nutraceutics);

VII. Meatless meals;

VIII. Vegetarianism;

IX. Managing weight;

X. Performance nutrition.

What presented above however, is a general overview with a global focus.

Nevertheless, considering only Italy, the perspective changes a lot.

Nowadays, the Italian food sector is economically supported exclusively by

exports, which continue to grow. In terms of domestic consumption all the

- " -16

data show a worrying situation, certainly linked to the effect of the economic

crisis and the reduction in the purchasing power of Italian families (even rich

families, since last year consumption of caviar and champagne plummeted).

According to FIPE, the Italian federation of retailers (Federazione Italiana

Pubblici Esercizi) (Sbraga, Erba, 2012), from 2007 and 2012 (i.e. the years of

the crisis) showed a reduction in spending of € 11 billion (net of price

variations). The cuts affected also consumer stables like bread and pasta,

(-10% in value terms), meat (-8%), and cheese (-9,9%). Also the

consumption of fruits and vegetable have dropped drastically (respectively

-759 million euro and -835 million euro).

More in details, data show a decrease in food consumption, that is more

pronounced in the domestic side than in the outside-home front. Finally, the

market research shows that the only exception to this down-warded trend is

the field of organic food segment, which continues to grow despite offering

prices are higher than those of conventional products on average. This

countertrend confirms the new consumer trend related to an healthier and

more sustainable way of eating, which is shaping Italian consumer, despite

the current economic crisis and the slumps of food consumption.

Considering altogether the new trends highlighted in the previous pages, the

economic literature resumes them with the name “critical consumption”, a

consumer behavior that shares many aspects with the L.O.H.A.S.’ segment.

According to the definition (Centro Nuovo Modello di Sviluppo, 2011), the

critical consumption is opposed to the impulsive consumption and it consists

in buying a product not only on the base of its price and its quality, but also

according to its environment and social impact. The consumer makes

consumption choices according to predefined criteria, which are based on

environmental sustainability, health and safety risks, animal welfare, fair

trade, labour conditions, and human rights. Indeed, the critical consumer

- " -17

looks also at the supply chain behind the final products, preferring a product

whose production respects sustainability principles.

- " -18

3. The Global Scenar io in 2050: a new Malthusian Trap?

Before starting to present the core of the topic and the data analysis carried

out, it is crucial to introduce and to understand the context in which the

market of vegetable proteins-based products is expected to develop in the

next decades. For this purpose, the following chapter will briefly describe the

different sides of the paradigm expected to rule the World in 2050.

In his latest book called “Full Planet, Empty Plates: the new geopolitics of

food scarcity” (Brown, 2012), the President of the Earth Policy Institute

Lester R. Brown, sketches out new and, in some ways disturbing, scenarios

for the so-called geopolitics of food: “The world is in transition from an era of food abundance to one of scarcity. Over the last decade, world grain reserves have fallen by one third. World food prices have more than doubled, triggering a worldwide land rush and ushering in a new geopolitics of food. Food is the new oil. Land is the new gold”. 23

According to the author, a future reduced water and land availability will bring

the world towards food scarcity. As a consequence, the control of arable

land and water resources is becoming critical in order to assure food

security. In this era of tightening world food supplies, the new imperative for

governments’ strategies is assuring food to the population in order to avoid

riots and political unrests. In other words, food availability is a geopolitical

leverage. As an evidence to that, Brown describes the phenomenon of land

grabbing by food-importing countries, as a shelter against poor harvests and

an increasingly volatile food prices.

Beside, land grabbing, the author’s theory of a new geopolitics of food is well

supported by some recent events that completely transform the agri-

- " -19

Taken from: Brown, Lester R. 2012. Full Planet, Empty Plates: the new geopolitics of food scarcity. W. W. 23

Norton & Company, New York.

commodities business around the world. COFCO Group, the largest food

processing, manufacturing and trading state-owned company in China, on

the 28th of February 2014 agreed to buy 51% of Nidera BV, one of the world

largest public company active in the grain business, with a volume turnover

of about 33 million tonnes a year and an annual revenues of more than 17

billion dollars. Despite the value of the deal has not been revealed, Nidera is

estimated to worth 4 billion dollars . One month later, on the 2nd of April 24

2014, COFCO announced also the acquisition of 51% stake of Noble Group

Ltd. for 1,5 billion dollar. Noble is another agribusiness multinational

company with sales of about 15 billion dollar in 2013 . 25

Clearly, the strategy behind these two acquisitions is related to food security

and, in the specific case of China, the main aim is to secure procurement of

agricultural raw materials for an ever hungrier and growing Chinese

population. Indeed, given that China is the world’s biggest importer of

commodities including cotton, rubber and soybeans, the two transactions

will strengthen COFCO, and thus China, access to and direct control over

Nidera’s and Noble’s agriculture assets overseas, and primarily in South

America, the world’s top producer continent of agricultural commodities, in

order to reduce China’s dependence to third-part market agents.

For certain aspects, the situation described above is similar to the so-called

Malthusian Trap, the economic doctrine outlined by the English economist

and reverent Thomas Robert Malthus in 1798 in his work “An essay of the

principle of the population as it affects the future improvement of society”

according to which, given that population was expected to grow at a

geometric rate while resources according to an arithmetic one, such a

difference in the two progressions would have inevitably lead to an imbalance

- " -20

Full article available at http://www.agrimoney.com/news/cofco-buys-control-of-nidera-fuelling-deal-24

spree--6805.html

Full article available at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/cofco-to-pay-1-5-billion-for-stake-in-25

noble-s-agriculture-unit.html

between resources, and in particular food, and the population. In other

words, Malthus was convinced that the continuous production of resources

was not able to sustain a larger population, because of the fact that an

increasing number of people will produce proportionally less and less

availability of resources to feed themselves (also known as the law of

diminishing returns). As a consequence, the result of this theory is an

inevitable progressive impoverishment and malnutrition of the world

population: the so-called “Malthusian Trap”.

In order to fully comprehend the possible situation that the World will face in

2050, it is then necessary to explains all the factors that took part in this

world-long equation: population, urbanization, nutrition, land availability,

water availability, agricultural outputs and food availability as the most

critical.

3.1 Expected Populat ion in 2050

When analyzing long-term future population growth trends, the most

prominent source of information is provided by the United Nations studies

carried out by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and

Social Affairs (2013). Its most recent Report draws a complete picture of 26

world population expected to live the world in the next forty to ninety years.

In order to better understand the dynamics behind the final result of this

report and to comprehend the consequences that the expected world

population growth will cause on world diet paths and food habits, it is

necessary not to look directly and exclusively to the final figures, but also to

dig the numbers a little thus to understand where the major changes will

occur and to comprehend the long-term trend and reasons behind them.

- " -21

The 2012 Revision.26

Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify how the United Nations divides world

nations:

I. More developed regions (MDC): comprise all regions of Europe, North

America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan;

II. Other less developed regions (OLDC): comprise all regions of Africa,

Asia (excluding Japan), Latin America, the Caribbean, Melanesia,

Micronesia and Polynesia less those nations considered as the least

developed;

III. Least developed countries (LDC): include 49 countries in June 2013: 27

Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso,

Burundi, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros,

Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea,

Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Haiti, Kiribati, Lao People’s

Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali,

Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Rwanda, Samoa, Sāo

Tomé and Príncipe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia,

South Sudan, Sudan, Timor-Leste, Togo, Tuvalu, Uganda, United

Republic of Tanzania, Vanuatu, Yemen and Zambia.

That being so, it is important to clearly point out that the People’s Republic

of China is not ranked as a more developed country despite it is the world

second economic power (International Monetary Fund, 2013), but as one of

the other less developed country together with India, which today they

account for a total figure of 2.6 billion people, 36,84% of the total population

estimated to be alive in 2013. The same reasoning applies for all the

countries usually accounted as BRICS.

According to the report, the world population of 7,2 billion that was

estimated to live the planet in 2013 is projected to increase by almost one

- " -22

The list of the least developed countries is defined by the United Nations General Assembly, resolutions 27

59/2009, 59/210, 60/33, 62/97, 64/L.55, 67/L.43

billion people in 2025, and to further increase to 9,6 billion by 2050 (Figure 28

3.1.1).

Figure 3.1.1: POPULATION OF THE WORLD, DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 1950, 1980, 2013, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: “World Population

Prospects: The 2012 Revision”, 2013.

Compared with previous estimations, the 9,6 billion number is higher mainly

for two reasons:

I. The average fertility level has been increased in its absolute value

despite the future trend is down-warded. According to the medium

variant, global fertility will decline from 2,53 children per woman in

2005-2010 to 2,24 children in 2045-2050. Actually, in the more

developed regions fertility is expected to grew from an current average

of 1,66 children per woman, to 1,85 children in 2050. Oppositely, a

sharp reduction is projected both for the least developed countries

(from 4,53 to 2,87 children per woman) and the rest of the developing

world (from 2,40 to 2,09 children per woman). As a consequence,

expert expects fertility levels of least developed and developing

(millions) 1950 1980 2013 2050

More Developed Countries 813 1.083 1.253 1.303

Other Less Developed Countries 1.518 2.973 5.011 6.437

Least Developed Countries 195 393 898 1.811

World (total) 2.526 4.449 7.162 9.551

- " -23

All the results presented in this chapter are based on the medium-variant projection. This scenario assumes 28

a decline of fertility for those countries characterized by large families and, oppositely, a slight increase of fertility in those countries where the average family has less than two children. The report originally considers other two different scenarios, the high-variant and the low-variant, which are based on different fertility estimations. However, these two different scenarios are not considered in this dissertation.

countries to converge to that of the more developing countries at the

end of the century.

II. Life expectancy is forecasted to increase as a direct consequence of a

rapid decline in mortality, moving from 47 years of the middle of the last

century, to 76 years of 2050.

Analyzing the data then, what emerges is that almost all of the additional 2,4

billion people expected to be alive in 2050, are accounted as part of

developing countries , whose population is projected to rise from 5,9 billion 29

in 2013 to 8,2 billion in 2050. Among them, population growth is expected to

be particularly sharp in the least developed, whose population in 2050 is

expected to be double of today level (from 898 million inhabitants in 2013 to

1,8 billion in 2050). As far as the remaining developing countries are

concerned, experts expect a less dramatic population growth passing from

5,0 billion in 2013 to 6,4 billion 2050. In contrast, the population of the more

developed regions is expected not to change substantially. This unbalanced

growth is also shown by the percentage distribution of world population

(Figure 3.1.2).

Figure 3.1.2: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORLD POPULATION BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, ESTIMATE AND PROJECTIONS, SELECTED PERIODS, 1950, 1980, 2013, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)



(percentage) 1950 1980 2013 2050

More Developed Countries 32,2 24,3 17,5 13,6

Other Less Developed Countries 60,1 66,8 70,0 67,4

Least Developed Countries 7,7 8,9 12,5 19,0

World (total) 100,0 100,0 100,0 100,0

- " -24

Other Less Developed Countries plus Least Developed Countries29

In the more developed regions, by 2050 population will decrease by 4%,

while in the least developed countries it will grow by 6,5%, with a net

difference of more than 10 percentage points. In any case, those other

countries accounted by the UN as the other less developed will continue to

have the large population, accounting for 67,4% of the total world population

in 2050.

As far as age is concerned, the combined effect of fertility decline and life

expectancy increase turn out to be population aging (Figures 3.1.3 and

Figure 3.1.4). According to the UN study, the world population aged 60 years

or over in 2050 is expected to be 21% of the total population, while in 1950

it was just 8% of the total. Oppositely, the population aged 15 years or less

is expected to decline to 21% in 2050 (today it accounts for 26% of the total

population). As a consequence, in 2050 world population will mainly be aged

60 years or more (1,99 billion people) and between 15 and 59 years (1,6

billion people). The phenomenon of population aging will be much more

evident in the more developed countries, where old population is expected to

double by 2050, moving from a current value of 287 million people, up to

417 million. More importantly, in these countries in 2050 elder people will be

nearly twice the number of children. Among the less developed countries

then, the number of people aged over 60 years is increasing at the highest

pace ever (3,7% per annum) and it is forecast to reach 1,6 billion by 2050.

Interestingly, while the world population aged between 60 and 80 years will

increase at 175% from 2013 to 2050, the category of people aged over 80

years will grow at the incredible rate of 241%.

!!!

- " -25

Figure 3.1.3: DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD, DEVELOPMENT GROUPS BY BROAD AGE GROUPS, 2013 (MEDIUM VARIANT)

* Data expressed as part of the 60+ category. Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: “World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision”, 2013.

Figure 3.1.4: DISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION OF THE WORLD, DEVELOPMENT GROUPS BY BROAD AGE GROUPS, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)

* Data expressed as part of 60+ category.



Continuing with the analysis, the median age is another indicator of 30

population aging (Figure 3.1.5). At global level, the median age is projected

to rise from 29 in 2013 to 36 in 2050. Of course, the median age is higher in

those countries characterized by low fertility levels, like Europe, where the

median age is expected to move from 41 year in 2013 up to 46 in 2050.

(percentage) 0 - 14 15 - 24 25 - 59 60+ 80+*

More Developed Countries 16,0 12,0 48,0 23,0 4,5

Other Less Developed Countries 26,0 17,0 46,0 10,0 12,0

Least Developed Countries 40,0 20,0 35,0 5,4 0,5

World (mean) 26,0 17,0 45,0 12,0 1,7

(percentage) 0 - 14 15 - 24 25 - 59 60+ 80+*

More Developed Countries 16,0 11,0 41,0 32,0 9,5

Other Less Developed Countries 20,0 13,0 45,0 22,0 3,8

Least Developed Countries 30,0 18,0 42,0 10,0 1,1

World (mean) 21,0 14,0 44,0 21,0 4,1

- " -26

The median age is considered as the age that divides the population in two halves of equal size,30

Figure 3.1.5: MEDIAN AGE FOR THE WORLD AND DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 1950, 1980, 2013, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)



To sum up, world population is expected to grow to 9,5 billion people by

2050, with a large increment in the least developed countries, thus depicting

a situation that will be the exact opposite of the present one. Moreover,

world population will be much more aged, with the percentage of people

aged 60 or more that will reach the percentage of young people aged less

than 15 years by 2050 (Figure 3.1.6, Figure 3.1.7 and Figure 3.1.8).

Figure 3.1.6: WORLD POPULATION (LEFT AXIS) AND MEDIAN AGE (RIGHT AXIS) BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 1950, 1980, 2013, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)



(years) 1950 1980 2013 2050

More Developed Countries 28,5 31,9 40,5 44,5

Other Less Developed Countries 21,6 20,3 28,7 37,6

Least Developed Countries 19,3 17,6 19,7 26,4

World (total) 23,5 22,6 29,2 36,1

- " -27

Med

ian A

ge (in

yea

rs)

0

9,5

19

28,5

38

Popu

latio

n (in

billi

ons)

0

3

5

8

10

1950 1980 2013 2050

MDC LDC OLDC WORLD Median Age

Figure 3.1.7: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORLD POPULATION BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)



Figure 3.1.8: DISTRIBUTION OF THE WORLD POPULATION BY BROAD AGE GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 2013, 2050 (MEDIUM VARIANT)



- " -28

Popu

latio

n (in

per

cent

age

term

s)

0

25

50

75

100

2013 2050

More Developed Countries Other Less Developed Countries Least Developed Countries

Popu

latio

n (in

billi

ons)

0

3

5

8

10

2013 2050

0 - 14 15 - 24 25 - 59 60+ 80+

3.2 Future Urbanizat ion Trends

Population growth analysis is not enough however in order to understand

how the new geopolitics of food will change in the next forty years. Another

critical factor to take into consideration is related to future urbanization

levels, since an enlargement in the area devoted to cities will definitely

translate into a reduction of arable land and thus into a ever constraining

availability of resources.

Urbanization consists of all those migrations that occur mostly internally to

each country, and through which people living in the countryside move to the

urban areas . This trend, which has been happened for ages, is usually 31

associated mainly with industrialization, increasing income and with the

sociological process of rationalization . 32

Also for this kind of analysis the most prominent source is the study carried

out by the Population Division of the United Nations (2012). This report

presents estimates and projections of how the current balance between

urban and rural populations have changed in the last sixty years and how it

will evolve in the next four decades.

According to this research and to what Satterthwaite (2007) stated in his

paper, population growth is becoming largely an urban phenomenon

concentrated in the developing world. Indeed, today more than half of the

world population lives in urban areas. Nevertheless, not all regions are the

same. For example, while for Asia the share of population living in the cities

will be half by 2020, in Africa this process will take more time, and only by

2035 half of the Africans will live in urban areas.

Between 2011 and 2050, the population living in urban areas is projected to

increase by 72% (+2,6 billion), passing from 3,6 billion in 2011 to 6,3 billion

- " -29

Adaptation from the United Nations definition of Urbanization31

In sociology, rationalization refers to the replacement of traditions, values, and emotions as motivation for 32

behavior in society, with rational, calculated ones (Karl Emil Maximilian Weber).

by the middle of the century. Considering the data about population growth

then, world urban areas are expected to absorb the very large majority of

population growth by 2050 (2,3 billion people out of a total 2,4 billion total

increment). As a result, the world rural population in 2050 will be lower by

0,3 billion inhabitants than today. These trends will be mostly driven by the

dynamics in the less developed regions, which today represent 92% of the

total world rural population.

Furthermore, also the population growth expected for urban areas are

forecast to be concentrated less developed regions, whose population is

projected to increase from 2,7 billion in 2011 to 5,1 billion in 2050 (Asia +1,4

billion, Africa +0,9 billion, and Latin America and the Caribbean +0,2 billion).

Over the same period, the urban population of the more developed regions is

expected to remain stable (Figure 3.2.1 and Figure 3.2.2).

Figure 3.2.1: URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SELECTED PERIODS, 1950, 1970, 2011, 2030, 2050

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: “World Urbanization


(billions) 1950 1970 2011 2030 2050

Urban Population

World (total) 0,75 1,35 3,63 4,98 6,25

More Developed Regions 0,44 0,67 0,96 1,06 1,13

Less Developed Regions 0,30 0,68 2,67 3,92 5,12

Rural Population

World (total) 1,79 2,34 3,34 3,34 3,05

More Developed Regions 0,37 0,34 0,28 0,23 0,18

Less Developed Regions 1,42 2,01 3,07 3,11 2,87

- " -30

Figure 3.2.2: URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SELECTED PERIODS, 1950, 1970, 2011, 2030, 2050



Despite the expected increase in absolute terms, forecasts expects the rate

of growth of the world urban population to slow down in the next future,

moving from an average growth rate of 2,6% per annum between 1950 and

2011, to a 1,7% annual increment in the period between 2011 and 2030,

down to a further increment of just 1,1% from 2030 to 2050(Figure 3.2.3 and

Figure 3.2.4).

!!!!!!!

- " -31

Popu

latio

n (in

billi

ons)

0

1,75

3,5

5,25

7

1950 1970 2011 2030 2050

Urban Population Rural Population

Figure 3.2.3: AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF CHANGE OF URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SELECTED PERIODS, 1950, 1970, 2011, 2030, 2050



Figure 3.2.4: AVERAGE ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE OF CHANGE OF URBAN AND RURAL POPULATIONS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SELECTED PERIODS, 1950, 1970, 2011, 2030, 2050



(percentage) 1950 - 1970 1970 - 2011 2011 - 2030 2030 - 2050

Urban Population

More Developed Regions 2,09 0,89 0,52 0,29

Less Developed Regions 4,04 3,33 2,02 1,34

World (total) 2,98 2,41 1,66 1,13

Rural Population

More Developed Regions -0,48 -0,48 -0,92 -1,14

Less Developed Regions 1,74 1,03 0,07 -0,40

World (total) 1,36 0,87 -0,01 -0,44

- " -32

Popu

latio

n G

row

th (in

per

cent

age)

-0,75

0

0,75

1,5

2,25

3

1950 - 1970 1970 - 2011 2011 - 2030 2030 - 2050

Urban Population Growth Rural Population Growth

Interestingly, the average annual rate of chance of urban and rural

populations will both decline at almost the same constant rate over the next

years, thus confirming the declining trend of population growth expected in

the same period.

As a consequence of these dynamics, at global level, urbanization is

expected to rise from 52% in 2011 to 67% in 2050 (Figure 3.2.5). The more

developed regions are expected to see their level of urbanization increase

from 78% to 86% over the same period, while, in the less developed regions,

this will likely increase from 47% in 2011 to 64% in 2050.

Figure 3.2.5: PERCENTAGE URBAN POPULATIONS AT WORLD LEVEL, SELECTED PERIODS, 1950, 1970, 2011, 2030, 2050



Figure 3.2.6 finally translates the analysis of how urbanization will evolve in

different regions of the world from 2011 to 2050. Clearly, the two american

continents and Oceania will be less affected by future urbanization trends

given the already high level in 2011. Oppositely, Russia, the mediterranean

Africa and the Arabic region will register the highest increments.

!!!!!!!!

(percentage) 1950 1970 2011 2030 2050

World (total) 29,4 36,6 52,2 59,9 67,2

- " -33

Figure 3.2.6: PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION IN URBAN AREAS, SELECTED PERIODS 2011, 2030, 2050

!Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: “World Population

Prospects: The 2011 Revision” DEMOBASE extract. 2012.

- " -34

10 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division World Urbanization Prospects: The 2011 Revision

Figure III. Percentage of the population in urban areas, 2011, 2030 and 2050

2011

80 and over60 - 7940 - 5920 - 39Less than 20

2030

2050

Source: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division: World Population Prospects DEMOBASE extract. 2012.

NOTE: The boundaries shown on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Figure IV. Distribution of the world urban population by major area, 1950, 2011, 2050

3.3 Future Prospects for Nutr i t ion

The issue of food production for feeding a growing global population have

always been a source of debate among scholars, institutions and the

scientific world. History, however, has taught that food production grew

faster than population in the last sixty years, thus increasing per capita

consumption up to 2.770 kcal/person/day in 2003/2005 . From a purely 33

theoretical point of view, at aggregate level there is enough food product for

everyone to be well-fed. Unfortunately, this is not the real situation, with

malnutrition and undernutrition that still afflict millions of people around the

world.

From the nutritional point of view, the future trends outlined in the previous

paragraphs will inevitably force a change in diet habits, thus completely

transforming the daily intake and its composition each person will consume

by 2050. The key variable used for measuring and evaluating the evolution of

the world food situation is food consumption , in terms of Kcal/person/day. 34

Since 1970 it has increased from an average of 2.370 kcal/person/day to

2.770 kcal/person/day in 2003/05.

For the future, current projections suggest that average daily energy

availability could reach 3.070 kcal per person by 2050 (Figure 3.3.1 and

Figure 3.3.2).

!!!

- " -35

Source: FAO and USDA33

The term “Food Consumption” is considered as the national average apparent food consumption or 34

availability since the data come from the national Food Balance Sheet rather than consumption surveys.

Figure 3.3.1: PER CAPITA FOOD CONSUMPTION BY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SELECTED PERIODS, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2006, 2015, 2030, 2050

Source: FAO (re-elaborated)

Figure 3.3.2: PER CAPITA FOOD CONSUMPTION’S FUTURE TRENDS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, SELECTED PERIODS, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2006, 2015, 2030, 2050


As already explained and as the chart shows, future expectations for food

consumption forecast a less sloped increase from 2005/2007 to 2050

(+10,75% at world level) if compared with the one experienced between

1969/71 and 2005/2007 (+16,81% at world level) (Figure 3.3.2). This trend,

together with the similar ones related to world population growth and

urbanization, are expected to negatively influence agricultural consumption

patterns (see later).

(Kcal/person/day) 1969 1971

1979 1981

1989 1991

2005 2007 2015 2030 2050

Developed Contries 3.138 3.223 3.288 3.360 3.390 3.430 3.490

Developing Countries 2.055 2.236 2.429 2.619 2.740 2.860 3.000

World (average) 2.373 2.497 2.634 2.772 2.860 2.960 3.070

- " -36

Kcal/

pers

on/d

ay

1.800

2.250

2.700

3.150

3.600

1969

/1971

1979

/1981

1989

/1991

2005

/2007

2015

2030

2050

Developing Countries Developed Countries World

Analyzing more in details the data, the higher increment in per capita food

consumption have occurred and will occurred among the developing

countries, given that developed ones had already high levels of per capita

food consumption.

However, the expected production increase would not be sufficient to ensure

food security for everyone. Undernourishment in the developing countries 35 36

(expressed in world population terms) could fall from 12,5% in 2005/07 to

3,5% in 2050, meaning that still 318 million people would be still

undernourished in 2050 (Figure 3.3.3 and Figure 3.3.4).

Figure 3.3.3: INCIDENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SELECTED PERIODS, 1990, 2006, 2015, 2030, 2050

Source: Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J.: “World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision”, 2012, ESA

Working Paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome.

!!!

1990/1992 2005/2007 2015 2030 2050

Million People 810 827 687 543 318

Percent of Developing Countries’ Population 19,7 15,9 11,7 7,9 4,1

Percentage of World Population - 12,5 9,4 6,5 3,5

- " -37

The term “undernourishment” is used to refer to the status of persons whose food intake does not provide 35

enough calories to meet their basic energy requirements. Actually, a threshold level is not provided since calculations consider different parameters (age, sex, total population, agricultural products and trade) and thus there are different thresholds. The term “undernutrition” denotes the status of persons whose anthropometric measurements indicate the outcome not only, or not necessarily, of inadequate food intake but also of poor health and sanitation conditions that may prevent them from deriving full nutritional benefit from what they eat (FAO, 1999: 6).

Here the word developing countries comprehends all world countries except the developed ones. Indeed, it 36

the richest part of the world, undernourishment is not a critical issue.

Figure 3.3.4: INCIDENCE OF UNDERNOURISHMENT, DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SELECTED PERIODS, 2006, 2015, 2030, 2050

Source: Alexandratos, N., Bruinsma, J.: “World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision”, 2012, ESA

Working Paper No. 12-03. FAO, Rome.

Increasing food consumption has always being accompanied by significant

structural change in nutrition habits. With the rise of per capita food

consumption, diets have moved towards livestock products, vegetable oils,

etc. and away from staples such as roots and tubers. Today, however,

especially in the most developed countries, this trend is reversing, with a

sharp rise in vegetarian food consumption (see later).

When speaking about diet transitions, it is important to keep in mind culture

and religion, which heavily shapes these transition, like in India, where there

are taboos on cattle meat, or in the Muslim countries, where the religion

forbid pig-meat consumption.

Diet transitions have also medical impacts. Shifting towards energy-dense

diet regime, high in saturated fat, sugar and salt could generate an increase

in diet-related diseases, like obesity in western countries.

To briefly sum up, over the longer term significant progress can be made in

raising food consumption levels, thus affecting diet regimes and reducing the

percentage of the population undernourished.

- " -38

Perc

enta

ge o

f Und

ernu

rishe

d Pe

ople

0

3,25

6,5

9,75

13

2005/2007 2015 2030 2050

Undernurished People / World Population

3.4 Land Avai labi l i ty in 2050

In the equation of food security, food demand, together with nutrition and the

caloric intake, is just one part of the system. Opposite to the demand side,

there is the supply side, which in turn is influenced by many aspects like land

and water availability, future yields and agricultural output. All these factors

must be compared and opposed to population growth and nutritional

changes in order to have the complete picture of how the world will be by

2050. All those factors will be analyzed in the next paragraphs.

In the very large majority of the mostly used economic models, land is always

considered as a constrained input, thus excluding any possibility to increase

the quota of fertile land devoted to agricultural production. This is reaffirmed

also by the estimations in this paragraph. Indeed, land increment expected

by 2050 is of just 70 million hectares out of 13 billions hectares currently

used (GAEZ, 2011). The reason of such a small increment is related to the

fact that spare land is often not accessible because of lack of infrastructures

or because it is located in remote areas, thus making its exploitation for

agricultural purpose uneconomical. In addition, the large majority of spare

land is condensed in a small number of countries, thus this does not solve

the land availability problem at global level.

With the purpose of understanting which could be the future availabity of

arable land in the world, IIASA (International Institute for Applied System

Analysis) and FAO in their study called “Global Agro-Ecological Zone” (GAEZ)

(2011) shows that, out of the total world land area of 13,019 billion hectares

(in-land water excluded) currently available, only 11,76% is categorized as

arable land and permanent crop, 25,912% is permanent meadows, 31,15%

- " -39

is covered by forests, and the remaining 31,18% is accounted as other

land (Figure 3.4.1 and Figure 3.4.2). 37

Figure 3.4.1: WORLD LAND AREA BY CATEGORY IN 2005/2007

Source: FAOSTAT

Figure 3.4.2: WORLD LAND AREA BY CATEGORY IN 2005/2007

Source: FAOSTAT

In addition, out of the GAEZ study, what have emerged is also that the 1,53

billion hectares already employed for crop production is just a small share

(21,25%) of the total 7,2 billion hectares of land with rain-fed production

potential. The remain 5,67 billion hectares, however, could not be considered

as potentially usable for crop production because 2,8 billion hectares are

forests and 1,5 billion hectares are of poor quality for rain-fed crops.

Total LandArable Land

and Permanent Crops

Permanent Meadows and

PasturesForest Area Other Land

Million Hectares 13.019 1.530 3.374 4.055 4.060

Percentage of Total Land 100,00 11,76 25,91 31,15 31,18

- " -40

Other land is the land not classified as Agricultural land and Forest area. It includes built-up and related 37

land, barren land, other wooded land, etc.

31,19%

31,15%

25,92%

11,75%

Arable Land and Permanent Crops Permanent Meadows and Pastures Forest Area Other Land

Out of the calculations, from the total 7,2 billion hectares, 1,37 billion

hectares of fertile land are left out and not used for agricultural purposes.

Given the current situation, at this point of analysis the issue is to understand

which share of this fertile land reserve may come under cultivation by 2050.

The perspective analysis made by FAO considering the moderate growth in

crop productions and the potential increase in yields rather than land area

(see later), suggests that not much of that spare land will be used. As already

states, FAO forecasts that at aggregate level arable land can increase by just

70 million hectares by 2050. Unfortunately, this value is only a small part

(5,11%) of the 1,37 billion hectares of the global extra land currently available

but unusable because of the reasons already stated above (Figure 3.4.3).

Figure 3.4.3: FUTURE TRENDS IN ARABLE LAND AREAS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 2005/2007, 2050

Source: GAEZ (re-elaborated)

As already stated however, the problem is often at regional level. Usually,

those countries that need extra arable land in order to increase food

availability for their population do not have access to those unused lands, or

they do not have researches for exploiting them. This constraint can increase

trades or investments in land or eventually it could force the population to

migrate.

(million hectares) 2005/2007 2050 Net Difference % Net Difference

Developed Countries 624 586 -38 -6,09%

Developing Countries 968 1.075 107 11,05%

World (total) 1.592 1.661 69 4,33%

- " -41

3.5 Water Avai labi l i ty in 2050

Another key factor in the equation of food security is of course water. Beside

being vital for almost all forms of life, from the agricultural point of view water

is critical for crops. Indeed, a critical condition for good yields is that plant

roots can have a good access to water in order to perform an efficient

photosynthesis. If water from the soil or from rains (usually called green

water) is not available or it is not sufficient, farmers needs to have access to

blue water (lakes and rivers), even if at a cost.

Anyhow, water is not critical for the agricultural sector, thus farmers,

especially in the future, are expected to compete for its access, and

population growth in regions with limited rainfall will then creates dilemmas

about water utilization.

In order to compare the availability of cropland water with food water

requirements in 2050, a series of model-based studies have been carried out

(Jägerskog and Clausen, 2012).

These models assume that climate change will follow a standard scenario,

precipitations are expected to be average (even if the the increasing

variability of rainfall is a large challenge) and population is expected to grow

according to UN medium variant projection. The availability of water was then

compared with water requirements of different diet compositions.

Three different diet combinations were analyzed:

I. Food production in line with current dietary trends (3.000 kcal/person/

day, 20% animal food);

II. A diet in line with current trends but a reduction of meat consumption

(3.000 kcal/person/day, 5% animal food);

III. The food intake required assuming that all losses could be avoided.

The analysis shows that in 2050 there will not be enough water available to

produce food for all the population if the world population will standardize its

food regime to a 3.000 kcal per capita food regime, which include 20% of

- " -42

calories produced coming from animal proteins. Oppositely, if the proportion

of animal based foods is limited to just 5% regional water deficits can be

offset by food trade, expert think that there will be just enough water for

everyone. Roughly, one-third of the world population will have enough

available water to allow for food self-sufficiency from rain-fed agriculture,

while the remaining two-thirds will face difficulties to access water.

Interestingly, the analysis also shows a close correlation between low

national income and cropland water deficiency: there is no low income

country with cropland water surplus.

Moreover, since, where infrastructures allows it, yields of irrigated crops are

well above those of rain-fed ones, it is important to understand how the area

of irrigated land will evolve in the future. From the numerical point of view,

data taken from FAO (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012) shows that, in

2005/2007, at world level, only 303 million hectares (20,02%) out of the total

land accounted as “arable land and permanent crops” of 1.513 million

hectares were actually irrigated. The remaining 1.210 million hectares

(79,98%) were instead rain-fed. In any case, the irrigated areas in 2005/2007

was already more than twice the level of the early 1960s. Interestingly,

splitting the data between developed and developing countries, it results that

the large majority (77,48% of the total irrigated land) is located in developing

countries.

Forward to the long-term analysis, the potential for further expansion of

irrigation is very limited. The global-local antithesis already arisen for arable

land is point out also for water supply: there are plenty of renewable water

resources globally, but they are extremely scarce in regions such as the Near

East/North Africa, or Northern China, where they are most needed.

FAO (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012) estimated that globally only some

180 million hectares in the developing countries (no estimates are available

for the developed countries) can offer irrigation expansions, even if not at full

- " -43

capacity. As for land in fact, FAO projected that only 20 million hectares of

this reserve (11,11%) may be used by 2050 for expansion, thus rising the

total irrigated land at 322 million hectares (Figure 3.5.1 and Figure 3.5.2).

Figure 3.5.1: AREA EQUIPPED FOR IRRIGATION BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS, 1962, 2006, 2030, 2050

Source: FAO and USDA (re-elaborated)

Figure 3.5.2: AREA EQUIPPED FOR IRRIGATION BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 1962, 2006, 2030, 2050


!

million hectares 1961/1963 2005/2007 2030 2050

Developed Countries 38 68 69 69

Developing Countries 103 234 246 253

Of which China and India 56 127 132 134

World (total) 143 302 315 322

- " -44

Milli

on H

ecta

res

0

100

200

300

400

1961/1963 2005/2007 2030 2050

Developed Countries Developing Countries Of which China and India World

3.6 Agr icu l tura l Yie lds in 2050

From the two previous paragraph it is outlined that, despite a large

availability of rain-fed arable land at world level, only a very little increment

will be likely. More in detailed, an increment of only 4,33% will be feasible for

arable land, while for water it will be at maximum at +6,62% from the current

situation.

More dangerously for food security, also arable land in per capita terms is

projected to decline in the next decades from a current level of 0,242 hectare

per person to a level of 0,174 hectare per person . 38

However, if we compare the declining arable land per person with the

observed increasing average food consumption per person, this will

inevitably be interpreted as a sign of an increasing agricultural productivity

(crop yields).

Concerning grains (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012), FAO reported the 39

world average yield was 1,44 tonnes/hectare in the first half of the 1960s,

2,4 tonnes/ha in the first half of the 1980s and 3,4 tonnes/hectare in

2005/2007. This linear declining trend corresponds to a falling growth rate.

Nevertheless, with the projected demand slowdown, a further decline in the

growth rate of yields would be in any case compatible with the need to

produce the quantities required at world level.

For the future then, by 2050 the average yield would have grown to 5,42

tonnes/ha (Figure 3.6.1 and Figure 3.6.2).

!!!

- " -45

These calculations are made comparing the people expected to be alive in 2005/2007 and in 2050 with the 38

total amount of arable land available in the same periods. Data are taken from UN and FAO

Using a standard average and considering grains as a proxy for the entire on-field production.39

Figure 3.6.1: AVERAGE CEREAL YIELDS IN THE WORLD, SELECTED PERIODS, 1963, 1983, 2006, 2050


Figure 3.6.2: AVERAGE CEREAL YIELDS IN THE WORLD, SELECTED PERIODS, 1963, 1983, 2006, 2050


Subsequently, the key question shift from whether global average yields can

continue to grow, to whether some countries and regions can increase their

yields up from past nearly stagnant patterns. As indicated in a recent World

Bank paper (Smale et al., 2011), technical and resource potential seems to

be available in many countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, but the issue remain

related to the policy environment of those areas.

To conclude, decreasing growth rates of global average yields for cereals are

not necessarily a signal of forthcoming catastrophe, rather that they could be

interpreted as signs of growing yields in the future. A big issue however

yields (tonnes per hectar) 1960/1965 1980/1985 2005/2007 2050

World (standard average) 1,44 2,40 3,40 5,42

- " -46

Milli

on H

ecta

res

0

1,5

3

4,5

6

1960/1965 1980/1985 2005/2007 2050

Standard Average

remain unsolved: at local levels, many constraints work against the expected

positive trends in yield growth, thus negatively affecting local food supplies in

those countries which mostly need them.

3.7 Food Product ion in the Next Forty Years

Already in the third century A.D., Tertullian, the Christian roman author from

Carthage, in his most famous composition “De Anima” wrote that: “pestilence, and famine, and wars, and earthquakes have to be regarded as a remedy for nations, as the means of pruning the luxuriance of the human race” highlighting the issue that many centuries later, in the late eighteen 40

century, will be at the base of the scientific debate following Malthus, and

more recently with Paul Ehrich’s “The Population Bomb”.

Actually, none of these catastrophic scenarios has already shocked the

planet and, based on the long-term decline in the real price of food up to the

mid-80s and the near constancy up to about 2005, historical evidence

confirms that the world food production have grown faster than population

(Figure 3.7.1).

The factors that were mostly responsible for this decline were the slowdown

in population growth, together with an increasing per capita food

consumptions, and the fact that the poor were not able to afford more food.

From 2005 on, however, also real prices has started to grow again up to

2011 when the financial crisis hits the world economy. Reasons for this new

uptrend must be found in the drought of 2006 that afflicted crops along the

entire Northern hemisphere and in the rise of speculation on commodities by

pension funds, hedge funds and other types of speculative investors. Likely,

those factors will probably continue to operate also in the future, perhaps

intensifying their effects from time to time.

- " -47

Taken from: Tertullian, Quintus F. S. 207-212 A.C. De Anima, Vol. 3, Ch. 30.40

Figure 3.7.1: REAL PRICE OF FOOD COMPARED WITH NOMINAL PRICE, 1961- 2014

Source: FAO Food Price Index (re-elaborated). Prices are expressed as proportion to those measured between

2002 and 2004 that will be accounted as 100.

In the long term analysis (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012), data shows

that, at world level, demand growth for crop and livestock products is

projected to be lower than in the past (1,1% per annum increment in the

period 2007-2050, against a 2,2% per annum increment accounted in the

period 1970-2007) (Figure 3.7.2) with China that accounts for a large part of

the global deceleration. To this, also the stable population expected for 41

developed countries between 2030 and 2050 heavily contributes. Another

important issue is related to per capita food consumption: those countries

with high per capita food consumption (over 2.700 kcal/person/day in 42

2005/2007) will naturally face a limited scope for increasing consumption.

- " -48

The pivotal role played by China in the deceleration of demand is also known as the “China Effect”. China 41

stated its star performance in increasing food consumption after the late 1970s and consequently per capita consumption of the developing countries grew at 1,7% per annum between 1980 and 2007, but at only 0,8% if China is excluded. This effect then is expected to disappeared in the future since China has already reached 2.970 kcal/person/day in 2005/2007.

Developed countries42

Developing countries43

Price

Inde

x

0

60

120

180

240

1961 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Deflated Price Index (Real Price) Nominal Price Index

Oppositely, those with low per capita food consumption (less than 2.700 43

kcal/person/day in 2005/2007) will show higher potential.

Concerning supply, data shows that at global level sufficient production

potential can be developed for meeting the expected increases (Figure 3.7.2

and Figure 3.7.3). As noted, a less sloped decrement of the rate of growth

compared to consumption is expected, thus reducing any risk related to a

catastrophic forecast for food security at world level. Unfortunately, as

already stated, it is important to remember that what is valid at world level

unfortunately does not work at regional or single-country level. As a

consequence, despite an expected decrement, food insecurity will be still a

dramatic issue for some millions of people around the world.

Figure 3.7.2: PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE OF DEMAND AND PRODUCTION FOR ALL COMMODITIES, ALL USES, PERCENT PER ANNUM, SELECTED PERIODS 1970 - 2050


percentage 1970 - 2007 1980 - 2007 1990 - 2007 2007 - 2050

Demand

Developed Countries 0,5 0,3 0,4 0,5

Developing Countries 3,6 3,6 2,8 1,6

Of which China 0,5 0,7 0,7 0,3

World (total) 2,2 2,2 2,3 1,1

Production

Developed Countries 0,6 0,2 0,3 0,5

Developing Countries 3,5 3,5 3,4 1,3

Of which China 0,6 0,6 0,5 0,2

World (total) 2,1 2,1 2,2 1,1

- " -49

Figure 3.7.3: PERCENTAGE GROWTH RATE OF DEMAND AND PRODUCTION FOR ALL COMMODITIES, ALL USES, PERCENT PER ANNUM, SELECTED PERIODS 1970 - 2050


Noteworthy, as already stated, both growth rates for production and

consumption are expected to decline in the next 35 years: they both will be

reduced by half in the period 2007 - 2050 when compared to the previous

period 1970 - 2007.

3.8 Expectat ions for 2050

Trying to summarize all the information presented in the previous paragraphs

and to get the full image of the present and future situations, the baseline

projections show that by 2050, when the world population should have reach

the amount of 9,551 billion people (+45% over the 2005/2007 level), the

world’s average daily calorie availability could rise to 3.070 kcal per person,

an 11% increase over the 2005/2007 average levels.

For these projections to materialize, annual world agricultural production

must increase by 56% from 2005/2007 to 2050, consisting of a 73%

- " -50

Gro

wth

Rat

e (p

erce

nt p

er a

nnum

)

0

0,55

1,1

1,65

2,2

1970 - 2007 2007 - 2050

Demand (World) Production (World)

increase in developing countries and a 34% increase in developed countries.

Over the same period, given the world population’s projection, per capita

production would have to rise by 8%.

This would translate into a smaller increase of per capita calorie availability

mainly due to the expected changes in diet regimes (e.g. a shift to higher

value foods of often lower calorie content like vegetables and fruits to

livestock products which imply a less efficient conversion of calories of the

crops used in livestock feeds) (Figure 3.8.1 and Figure 3.8.2).

For example, at world level, per capita meat consumption is expected to rise

from 39 kg at present to almost 50 kg in 2050 (+28%). This increment will be

much more marked in the developing part of the world, where diet shift is

expected to be much more pronounced than in the developed part. At

aggregate level, this would imply that much of the additional crop production

in 2050 will be used for feeding purposes in livestock production, thus

reducing the share devoted to direct human food supply.

At world level, agricultural demand and supply are expected to grow at

almost the same rate. Projections shows that total cereal consumption,

which could be used as a valid proxy for all agricultural products, will grow

by 66% from the current level, thus increasing the per capita consumption

from 315 kg in 2005/2007 to 330 kg in 2050 (+5%). Again, this data is highly

depended to the part of the world analyzed. Indeed, in developed countries

this increment is expected to be +48%, while in the developing part of the

world experts appraise it by only +5%.

As a consequence, diet shifts and per capita caloric intake are exhaustively

explained by percentage variation in cereals and meat consumptions (Figure

3.8.1). Both will show a drastic decline from 2005/2007 to 2050 (meat:

+31% for developed countries and +44% for developing countries; cereals:

+48% for developed countries and +5% for developing ones) if compared to

the rate of growth experienced between 1961/1963 and 2005/2007 (meat:

+57% for developed countries and +205% for developing countries; cereals:

- " -51

+35% for both developed and developing countries) thus clearly highlighting

the slowdown expected in future production growth when compared to past

trends.

The reasons have to be found out in the projected deceleration in demand

for agricultural products, which, in turn, is a reflection of the decelerating

growth of population, as well as in the ever increasing share of population

that gradually attains middle to high levels of food consumption (both for

cereals and meat) (Figure 3.8.3).

Figure 3.8.1: INCREASES IN POPULATION, CALORIES SUPPLY AND AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONS BY DEVELOPMENT GROUPS, SELECTED PERIODS 1962, 2006, 2050

Unit 1961/1963 2005/2007 2050

Developed Countries

Population million people 1.012 1.351 1.303

Daily Energy Supply kcal/person/day 2.983 3.360 3.490

Total Production* index (2005/2007=100) 64 100 134

Cereals million tonnes 500 904 1.216

Meat million tonnes 52 109 138

Developing Countries




Cereals million tonnes 353 1.164 1.937


World (total)


- " -52

* In value terms (2004/2006 International Commodity Prices) Source: FAO (re-elaborated)

Figure 3.8.2: INCREASE IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIONS AT WORLD LEVEL, COMPARISON WITH POPULATION AND DAILY ENERGY SUPPLY, SELECTED PERIODS 1962, 2006, 2050


!!!!!!!



Cereals million tonnes 843 2.068 3.153


- " -53

Milli

on P

eopl

e0

2.500

5.000

7.500

10.000

Milli

on To

nnes

- Kc

al/da

y/pe

rson

0

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

1961 - 1963 2005 - 2007 2050

Cereals (Production) Meat (Production) Population (Right Axis)Daily Energy Supply

Figure 3.8.3: PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS IN PER CAPITA CEREALS AND MEAT CONSUMPTIONS COMPARED WITH PER CAPITA CALORIC INTAKE AT AGGREGATE LEVEL, SELECTED PERIODS 1961 - 2050


This last chart allows also to infer that, while the percentage variation in per

capita meat consumption is expected to be very negatively sloped as a

consequence of the shifts in diets expected in the future, the variation of per

capita cereal consumption will decline more softly, almost at the same rate of

the expected decline in per capita caloric intake.

Deepening the analysis and looking at the developed and developing

countries separately (Figure 3.8.4 and Figure 3.8.5), what emerges it that, for

developed countries cereal consumption is not expected to decline in per

capita terms, it is expected to do so in developing ones. Oppositely, both for

developing and developed countries, meat consumption decrement is

expected to be sharp, thus confirming the shift in diet habits that will

explained later.

!

- " -54

Perc

enta

ge V

ariat

ion

0

20

40

60

80

1961/1963 - 2005/2007 2005/2007 - 2050

Per Capita Caloric Intake (W) Per Capita Cereals Consumption (W) Per Capita Meat Consumption (W)

Figure 3.8.4: PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS IN PER CAPITA CEREALS AND MEAT CONSUMPTIONS COMPARED WITH PER CAPITA CALORIC INTAKE FOR DEVELOPED COUNTRIES, SELECTED PERIODS 1961 - 2050


Figure 3.8.5: PERCENTAGE VARIATIONS IN PER CAPITA CEREALS AND MEAT CONSUMPTIONS COMPARED WITH PER CAPITA CALORIC INTAKE FOR DEVELOPING COUNTRIES, SELECTED PERIODS 1961 - 2050


- " -55

Perc

enta

ge V

ariat

ion

0

75

150

225

300

1961/1963 - 2005/2007 2005/2007 - 2050

Per Capita Caloric Intake (d) Per Capita Cereals Consumption (d)Per Capita Meat Consumption (d)

Perc

enta

ge V

ariat

ion

0

15

30

45

60

1961/1963 - 2005/2007 2005/2007 - 2050

Per Capita Caloric Intake (D) Per Capita Cereals Consumption (D) Per Capita Meat Consumption (D)

Concluding this introduction and summarizing all the concepts presented,

keeping 2050 as a given time frame, world population is expected to grow to

9,5 billion people despite a decelerating population growth ratio, with a larger

number of individuals living in the least developed countries, and with the

percentage of elder people that will equal the percentage of young people.

From the urbanization perspective, at world level, 67% of all the people

assumed to be alive in 2050 are expected to live in urban area (versus a

current level of 52% in 2011) and the majority of those urban area are

forecasted to be placed in the less developed regions (81,92%). 44

Those future population and urbanization trends will inevitably have a strong

impact on diet habits and food consumption, thus completely transform the

daily intake and its composition each person will consume in 2050. From the

strictly nutritional point of view, in the last four decades, per capita food

consumption has increased from 2.370 kcal/person/day in 1970 to 2.770

kcal/person/day and it is expected to further increase up to 3.070 kcal/

person/day by the middle of the century. In any case, this increment will not

remove the plague of malnutrition, undernourishment and food insecurity in

the poorest area of the world, with still 318 million people expected to be

undernourished by 2050.

Shifting the perspective and looking at the supply side of the food security

equation, perspective analyses on arable land availability in the future show

that, for different reasons, only 70 million hectares more will be used as

arable land in 2050, just a 5,11% share of the total potential area of 1,37

billion hectares currently available as arable land and not employed.

As far as water for agricultural purposes is concerned, the situation is much

more critical. Currently, only 20% of the total arable land used is irrigated,

- " -56

According the United Nation, the group of the less developed countries include all regions of Africa, Asia 44

(excluding Japan), Latin America, the Caribbean, Melanesia, Micronesia and Polynesia

while, by 2050 this share will be slightly reduced to 19,38% because of the

greater increment of arable land compared to the irrigated one.

For agricultural yields, the world average is expected to grow from 1,44

tonnes/hectares in the first half of the 1960s to 5,4 tonnes/hectares by 2050,

with the world that would be producing more grain than required by the

projected demand.

Despite the large literature related to possible dramatic shocks in population

level caused by the impossibility of the supply to satisfy the growing demand,

historical evidences confirms that the world food production have grown

faster than population at least in the near past. In the long term analysis,

data shows that, at world level, demand growth for crop and livestock

products is projected to be lower than in the past, but in any case, world

production will satisfy the increases in demand. As a consequence, all the

data and the analyses provided above clearly confirm that in 2050 a new

Malthusian Catastrophe will be very unlikely to happen. However, starvation,

famine, malnutrition, lack of fresh water availability and food scarcity will be

still huge problems at regional level, especially in all those countries that

nowadays are accounted as the least developing countries.

Despite it is very difficult to get information focused on the Italian situation, it

is easily possible to assume as a valid proxy what has already being

highlighted for developed countries (i.e. slow trend of population growth,

slow trend of urbanization, already high share of arable land used, and

already high per capita food consumption among others). Another important

aspect that must be underline when speaking about the Italian situation is

that meat consumption is expected to decline more than cereal

consumption, with data that actually support the need for a change in food

regimes, thus implying that plant-products could gain attention in the retail

market and will be much more present on the tables of the Italians

consumers in the next future.

- " -57

4. Plant Prote in Sources

In recent years vegetable sources of proteins have started to draw the

attention of the general public, and food-grade products based on vegetable

proteins have increased their market shares against traditional sources of

proteins. As already stated, nowadays people have became more conscious

about all the problems related to food and of all the possible consequences

their diet could generate on their own health, as well as on the environment.

Directly, plants has assumed a role of a valid alternative to meat as a source

of proteins, also starting to gain consensus among consumers.

Given the critical role proteins play in human life, people must assume them

regularly. The average quantity has been recently updated by the European

Food and Safety Authority (EFSA) and that is calculated in 0,83 grams per

kilo for an average adult (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Production, Nutrition and

Allergies, 2012). Both plant and animal foods contain proteins, but in the

case of plant sources, they do not contain all the nine essential amino acids

that humans cannot self-synthesize anymore, but which are in any case

necessary for life. For this reason, people undergoing a vegetarian or vegan

diet has to vary and integrate their meals.

As shown in previous paragraphs, in order to face a growing world

population, together with a ever reducing availability of per capita arable land

and, oppositely, increasing food consumption requirements expected to rule

the world in 2050, experts ask to the world population for a radical shift in

their food regime, not only aiming to a sustainable and environmentally

friendly approach towards the world, but also as a way for trying to reduce

the quota of people still afflicted by malnutrition and undernourishment.

Some scholars (Jägerskog and Jønch-Clausen, 2012) even think people may

have to shift almost completely to a vegetarian diet by 2050 in order to avoid

dramatic food shortages caused by water unavailability.

- " -58

Other data confirm the high environmental impact traditional western-based

diet regimes have. According to the calculations made by the experts of the

Barilla Centre For Food and Nutrition (2012), while red meat has an average

carbon footprint of 21.720 gCO2-eq. per kilo, a water footprint of 15.415

liters of water per kilo, and a total ecological footprint of 119 global m2 per 45

kilo, oppositely, legumes (here considered as a proxy for vegetable source of

proteins) have an average carbon footprint of 1.389 gCO2-eq. per kilo, a

water footprint of 2.710 liters of water per kilo, and a total ecological

footprint of 19 global m2 per kilo (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1: CARBON, WATER AND ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF DIFFERENT KIND OF FOOD PRODUCTS AND DIFFERENT KIND OF GROCERY SHOPPING

Source: Barilla Centre for Food and Nutrition (re-elaborated)

The difference is underlined once more when considering the average typical

grocery shopping made by the average consumer. Experts (Barilla Center for

Food and Nutrition, 2012) affirm that a grocery shopping without meat and

fish has an ecological impact of 140 g/m2/person/week, a grocery shopping

with a balance consumption of meat and fish has a weekly ecological impact

of 161 g/m2/person/week, while consuming meat every day of the week

negatively impacts on the ecological footprint of the grocery shopping by

increasing the final value to 188 g/m2/person/week.

Red Meat Legumes Percentual Difference

Carbon Footprint (Grams of CO 21.720 1.389 -93,60%

Water Footprint (Liter of Water per Kilo) 15.415 2.710 -82,42%

Total Ecological Footprint (Global Square Meter) 119 19 -84,03%

- " -59

According the Barilla Centre for Food and Nutrition the ecological footprint represent the capacity of the 45

Earth to regenerate all the natural resources used in the productive cycle of the product and to absorb all the emission generated during the entire process up to the final consumer.

Other related studies (Eshel and Martin, 2005) discover that, considering only

fossil energy consumption and thus the sole CO2 emissions, the average

American carbon footprint for food is about 193.850 kcal/week, while that 46

one for personal transportation can vary between 82.384 kcal/week and

329.538 kcal/week, thus making the two sources of consumption

dramatically equivalent, and confirming the need for a change of the usual

diet, maybe not towards a pure vegan one, but surely less dependent to

meat as source of protein.

Back to plant sources of proteins, traditionally, legumes, grains, vegetables

and fruits are the most valid. Among them, noteworthy are: amaranth, barley,

brown rice, buckwheat, kidney beans, lentils, lima beans, millet, navy beans,

oatmeal, soybeans, split peas, quinoa, rye, teff, wheat germ, wheat, wild

rice, artichokes, beets, broccoli, brussels sprouts, cabbage, cauliflower,

cucumbers, eggplants, green peas, green pepper, kale, lettuce, mushroom,

mustard green, onions, potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, turnip greens,

watercress, watermelon, apple, banana, grapefruit, melon, orange, papaya,

peach, pear, pineapple, strawberry, tangerine, almonds, cashews, hazelnuts,

peanuts, poppy seeds, pumpkin seeds, sesame seeds, sunflower seeds,

walnuts (Figure 4.2).

Figure 4.2: PROTEIN CONTENT OF DIFFERENT PLANT PRODUCTS, DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, COMPARISON WITH MEAT, INDEX-LINK (MEAT = 1),

Category Product Protein Content (Meat = 1) Product Protein Content

(Meat = 1)

Legumes

Amaranth 0,64 Oatmeal 0,61

Barley 0,59 Soybeans 0,61

Brown Rice 0,37 Split Peas 1,15

- " -60

Here the carbon footprint is calculated in terms of kcal/week46

Legumes

Buckwheat 0,62 Quinoa 0,66

Kidney Beans 0,20 Rye 0,49

Lentils 0,42 Teff 0,63

Lima Beans 0,32 Wheat Germ 1,09

Millet 0,58 Wheat (Soft White) 0,50

Navy Beans 0,29 Wildrice 0,69

Vegetables

Artichokes 0,15 Lettuce (Green Leaf ) 0,02

Beets 0,08 Mushroom 0,15

Broccoli 0,13 Mustard Green 0,13

Brussel Sprouts 0,16 Onions 0,05

Cabbage 0,06 Potatoes 0,12

Cauliflower 0,09 Spinach 0,04

Cucumbers 0,03 Tomatoes 0,04

Eggplants 0,05 Turnip Greens 0,07

Green Peas 0,26 Watercress 0,11

Green Pepper 0,04 Watermelon 0,03

Kale 0,20

Fruits

Apple 0,01 Peach 0,04

Banana 0,05 Pear 0,02

Grapefruit 0,03 Pineapple 0,02

Melon 0,03 Strawberry 0,03

Orange 0,04 Tangerine 0,04

Papaya 0,02

- " -61

Meat value are calculated taking different protein contents of lamb (mix parts) (16,88 gr.), turkey (breast) (21,64 gr.), pork (luxury loaf) (18,40 gr.), beef (5% fat) (28,04 gr.) and computing the arithmetic average (21,27 gr.).

Source: USDA (re-elaborated)

Analyzing the protein content of those products, it is clearly understandable

that the very large majority of them have a protein content that is far below

the content in the meat. In fact, looking at the different categories, legumes

have an average content of protein of 12,24 grams every 100 grams of

product (0,57 times comported to meat), vegetables have only 2 grams of

protein every 100 of product (just 0,10 times comported to meat on

average), fruits have the lowest content, with only 0,64 grams (0,03 times

comported to meat), while dried fruits, notably known for the high protein

content, have 21,20 grams of protein (almost the same of meat on average

since it is 0,99 times meat). More in details, analyzing only those plant

products having a protein content similar to that of meat like split peas,

wheat germ, almond, cashews, peanuts, poppy seeds, pumpkin seeds,

sesame seeds, sunflower seeds and walnuts, it is clear that on average they

contain the same amount of protein as meat.

Commercially speaking however, beside the so-called traditional foods

presented above, there are a wide range of products claimed to be vegetable

source of proteins, which are derived mainly from soybeans, kamut, wheat,

and lupin bean. Those products are reasonably new to the western general

public even if they are becoming very popular also in standard large

distribution chains and supermarkets.

Dried Fruits

Almond 0,99 Pumpkin Seeds 1,42

Cashews 0,86 Sesame Seeds 0,83

Hazelnuts 0,70 Sunflower Seeds 0,98

Peanuts 1,21 Walnuts 1,13

Poppy Seeds 0,85

- " -62

Noteworthy are wheat gluten, seitan (firstly invented in the USA by Mr.

Kellogg, the inventor of the corn-flakes, in 1940), tofu, tempeh (similar to

tofu), lactose-free milk and other dairy products like butter, cream and

custard made from soybean, rice, kamut, oat, almonds or other plant

sources, ice-cream made by the same plants’ extracts, meat substitutes like

burgers, würstels and stews obtained mainly from soybean, seitan, kamut

and spelt, from which also noodles or other kind of pasta are obtained.

These products, despite their vegetable origin, provide the right and

balanced protein intake (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: PROTEIN CONTENT OF DIFFERENT PLANT PROTEIN BASED PRODUCTS, DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, COMPARISON WITH NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, INDEX-LINK (TRADITIONAL = 1), 47

Product Protein Content (Standard = 1) Product Protein Content (gr. per

100 gr. product)

Oat Milk 0,26 Cow Milk 3,40

Rice Milk 0,09 Cow Milk 3,40

Seitan 0,47 Meat 21,27

Soy Biscuits 1,57 Biscuits 7,00

Soy Burger 0,80 Meat 21,27

Soy Custard 0,90 Custard 4,00

Soy Cutlet 0,75 Meat 21,27

Soy Escalopes 0,56 Meat 21,27

Soy Ice Cream 0,92 Ice Cream 3,80

Soy Meatballs 0,85 Meat 21,27

Soy Milk 0,97 Milk 3,40

- " -63

The word “non-plant product” is used as opposite to plant product in order to describe all those standard 47

source of proteins different from plant ones.

Meat value are calculated taking different protein contents of lamb (mix parts) (16,88 gr.), turkey (breast) (21,64 gr.), pork (luxury loaf) (18,40 gr.), beef (5% fat) (28,04 gr.) and computing the arithmetic average (21,27 gr.).

Source: USDA, FAO, Valsoia, Cameo, Ferrero (re-elaborated)

From the data in the Figure 4.3, all the major vegetable products listed show

a protein content that is comparable to the one in the non-plant product, if

not higher. Indeed, the average protein content for those plant-originated

products is around 19 grams of protein for every 100 grams of product, while

for the non-plant product the average is almost 11 grams of protein per

every 100 grams of products. This demonstrate the almost complete

replaceability of non-plant products with vegetable-originated ones.

4.1 The History of Vegetable Prote ins

As already stated, despite the recently new veggy-style trend that has

conquered the western diet habits, vegetable source of proteins were used

by humans since the first prehistoric communities of gatherers and hunters

set it as an highly nutritional source of food. Evidences of their application in

Soy Yoghurt 0,93 Yoghurt 4,00

Tempeh 0,87 Meat 21,27

Tofu 0,75 Cheese 20,00

Wheat Gluten 3,53 Meat 21,27

Vegetable and Potatoes Non-Fried Chips 6,90 Chips 3,48

Vegetable Baci di Dama 11,43 Baci di Dama 0,70

Vegetable Bechamel 0,97 Bechamel 3,30

Vegetable Cream 1,25 Nutella 6,80

Vegetable Snack 1,00 Kinder Tronky 0,00

- " -64

food can be found in the royal tombs of the ancient Egyptians, in the famous

Iliad of Homer in ancient Greece, and even in the Old Testament.

The use of legumes as a staple food dates back more than 20.000 years ago

in some Eastern cultures, while the common bean and Lima beans have

been grown for the first time since early civilizations in Mexico and Peru

5.000 years ago and were considered as a traditional dish both among the

Aztecs and the Incas (Hébrard, 2008). These ancient cultures already knew

that the secret of legumes was in their variety and immense nutritional value.

In North America then, according Amerindian and other native traditions,

legumes were to be mixed up with cereals for magical and religious ideas

before eating. Indeed, cereals, with their long grains were considered “male”

and legumes, with their round-shaped beans, were considered “female”, thus

eaten together they were used to celebrate life.

In any case, the most ancient source of protein ever recorded is soybean

(Shurtleff and Aoyagi, 2004). Soybean originally comes from China, where it

was considered one of the five sacred plants in the Chou Dynasty (1134 -

246 B.C.). At that time, soybean was already used, but in crop rotation to

enhance soil rotation rather than for food. It was only after the discovery of

the fermentation process that soybeans was eaten by Chinese as tamari and

miso. Around 200 B.C., the Chinese found that a liquid extraction of a

cooked and mashed soybeans could coagulate with calcium or magnesium

sulfate to make tofu. However, initially, all these new products were only used

in small quantities as seasoning and not in so large quantities thus to replace

animal or cereal proteins.

Although scholars are not sure if the beans were introduced in Europe after

the discovery of the Americas, it is true that the first european cultivations of

this legumes date back to the fifteen sixteen centuries (Singman, 1999). In

the mediaeval era indeed, legumes were known as “the meat of the Poor”

since they were largely and mainly consumed by the lower classes, given

that fish and meat were almost inaccessible for their very high prices. As a

- " -65

consequence, people were used to consume legumes in different ways: the

two most common were baked beans and pea soup (a common thick soup

made with dried peas). In Italy, legumes like beans, peas, lentils, and

chickpeas were, and still are, part of the Italian culinary tradition, especially

of farmers, belonging to the so-called "cucina povera” or “poor cookery”,

where the adjective poor is related to the low price of the ingredients.

Scholars and scientists started to study proteins and their composition since

the eighteenth century and they were always considered an animal

substance, slightly different from the substance of which muscles, skins and

blood are made of. Indeed, in 1728 the Italian scholar Jacopo Beccari

discovered the presence of a material with the characteristics of “animal

substance” in white wheat flour (Crespi and Gaudiano, 1970). It is for this

misconception that nowadays people usually associate proteins with meat,

or animal substance in general.

Later, Mulder (1939), a Dutch physician, recognized a standard formula for

this “animal substance”, verifying that all proteins seemed to have the same

empirical formula and that they might be composed of a single type of very

large molecule made of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen, where

nitrogen was the critical element. Indeed, at first it was thought that the

process of animal digestion and nutrition must consist of the combing of

nutrients in plant foods with the atmospheric nitrogen in order to “animalize”

them. This substance was believed to be gluey, able to turn into hard

material when properly heated. Moreover, oppositely to most whole plants,

which went to acid during damp, warm storage, proteins became foul-

smelling when kept under moist, warm condition, emitting an alkaline vapor

(Van Berkel et al., 1999).

In the same year, Jöns Jakob Berzelius, a swedish chemistry considered to

be one of the founders of modern chemistry, coined the world “protein” from

- " -66

the Greek sea-god Proteus in order to describe something primitive, or better

to indicate something of primary importance for nutrition.

Afterwards, the misconception that animal food contain superior protein than

plants was reassured Mendel and Osborne (1919), who studied protein

requirements of laboratory rats and demonstrated that rats grew better on

animal sources of protein rather than on vegetable source, thus suspecting

vegetable source of protein had insufficient amount of amino acids.

Many studies and researches followed this initial series of discoveries on

proteins. Some were crucial for the further development of chemistry, like the

study on calories and joules, the two energy units (Joule, 1845), or all the

derived researches applied to vitamins. Nevertheless, also the nutrition side

of science was heavily developed after those first discoveries on proteins.

The very earliest researches were proponents of high protein diets: the

German physiologist Dr. Carl Voit (1860) concluded that people with

sufficient income to afford almost any choice of foods would instinctively

select a diet containing the right amount of protein to maintain health and

productivity. Completely wrongly, the Dutch doctor was convinced that

people could became prosperous because they ate high protein diets. This

theory was suddenly reversed by Chittenden (1905). Chittenden also started

the first scientific experiments on protein needs for human body, where he

was very active in trying to understand which was the correct amount of

protein people have to intake daily in order to have an healthy diet. This

study was then completed by Rose (1949). Through his studies he

determined the minimum level of intake for each of the eight essential amino

acids, whose levels are still considered as a benchmark by the scientific

community.

- " -67

5. The I ta l ian Market of Vegetable Prote ins Products

According to a recent market research conducted in Italy (Eurispes, 2014),

lot of people like Vegan. The Italian market of plant foods is growing by one

percentage point every year even during the crisis. According to this report,

in Italy there are more than four million vegetarians and vegans (7,1% of the 48

Italian population), but much many are those people who consume plant

products beside non-plant products even if they do not consider themselves

as vegans. Vegetarians, even occasional, can be divided in different types:

pure vegans, macrobiotics, sports-health-consciouses, and those who

alternate animal or vegetable proteins as a way of having a more healthy,

sustainable and mixed food regime.

The market of plant products is a niche that today in Italy worth more than

25 million euro, and which has grown by about 30% in the last six years, and

more than 20% just between 2013 and 2014 . The reason for such a rapid 49

market growth is the radical shift consumer behavior is experience

nowadays, with food consumption that is increasingly linked to health and

sustainability, and people that consequently tend to consume less meat and,

oppositely, to introduce more and more plant products in their diets. These

plant products are massively sold in the circuit of the modern distribution,

where they have gained a lot of space in the shelves, and where they have

more competitive prices respect to specialty stores, the first in the

distribution system to introduce plant products in the Italian market.

- " -68

According to the European Vegetarian and Animal News Alliance (EVANA), Germany is the European 48

country with the largest number of vegetarians/vegans in its population (9% of the total population), while at world level, India is the largest, with 40% of the population that declare to be vegetarian or vegan. However, in India, the reason of such a big number of vegetarians/vegans is related to religion.

Data from The Nielsen Company49

Analyzing briefly the market from the brand side, what emerges is that the

Italian market is fragmented, with many small local producers, some big

companies like Valsoia, C.I.A.B.S. (Compagnia Italiana Alimenti Biologici e

Salutistici), Sojasun and Alpro Soja, and some private and distribution labels.

In the next paragraphs, a deep market analysis will be provided, concerning

values, volumes, and price variations, as well as distribution channels

analyses. All the data used are provided by The Nielsen Company and are

related to the periods between May 2012 and May 2014 (later considered as

2013 and 2014), the first two years in which the Italian branch of the world-

wide famous information and measurement company started to measure

consumption trends for such these products.

All the measurements are taken out of eight different food categories , 50

which include both non-plant products and plant products, or just plant

products:

1. Fresco altri piatti pronti o secondi (ready-cooked main course dishes);

2. Altre bevande piatte (no gas) latte di soia (soy-milk);

3. Fresco altri piatti pronti o altri tipi (ready-cooked starters, main courses,

side dishes, and others);

4. Soia (soy-based products like yoghurts, juices, deserts);

5. Primi piatti pronti o insalata pasta (salads and pasta);

6. Altri piatti pronti altri base altro (ready-cooked meat, seitan, and tofu

based main courses dishes);

7. Formaggi base soia (soy-based cheeses);

8. Latte di soia fresco (fresh soy-milk).

In total, the database provided refers to 1.258 food products, of which 452

(35,93%) are plant products, and the remaining 806 (64,07%) are non-plant

products (Figure 5.1).

- " -69

The eight food categories are part of a standard classification method by The Nielsen Company.50

Figure 5.1: FOOD PRODUCTS SUBDIVISION BETWEEN PLANT AND NON-PLANT PRODUCTS WITHIN THE EIGHT FOOD CATEGORIES

Product Category Item Type Number of Products Percentage

Total

Total 1.258 100,00%

Plant Products 452 35,93%

Non-Plant Products 806 64,07%

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti o Secondi

Total 596 100,00%



Altre Bevande Piatte (No Gas) Latte di Soia

Total 141 100,00%



Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti o Altri Tipi

Total 256 100,00%



Soia

Total 75 100,00%



Primi Piatti Pronti o Insalata Pasta

Total 106 100,00%



Altri Piatti Pronti Altri Base Altro

Total 56 100,00%



- " -70

Source: The Nielsen Company (re-elaborated)

5 .1 Market Value Analys is

In Italy, at aggregate level the market for all the eight food categories

analyzed represented a business of roughly 258 million euro in 2013, and of

about 290 million euro in 2014, thus experiencing a growing trend that in

percentage term is around 12,50% (Figure 5.1.1).

Figure 5.1.1: THE ITALIAN FOOD MARKET VALUE, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS 2013, 2014


Formaggi Base Soia

Total 17 100,00%



Latte di Soia Fresco

Total 2 100,00%



- " -71

Mar

ket V

alue

(in m

illion

eur

o)

0

75

150

225

300

2013 2014

Non-Plant Products Plant Products

Deepening the analysis and dividing plant products from the non-plant ones,

despite the former category is smaller in value than the latter, the plant

products segment has experienced a larger increment in the timespan

analyzed, growing by 21,60% compared to a much smaller 3,61% increment

experienced by non-plant products.

This trend is recurrent also in each single category analyzed, where plant-

products have grown more than non-plant products (on average +27,67% 51

for vegetable products versus -0,84% for non-plant products). Non-plant

products in fact, experienced a negative variation (i.e. “primi piatti pronti o

insalata pasta”) (Figure 5.1.2 and Figure 5.1.3).

Figure 5.1.2: PERCENTAGE VALUE VARIATION ANALYSIS OF FOOD CATEGORIES, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014

Product Category Item Type 2013 - 2014 Percentage Variation


Total 3,81%

Plant Products 37,68%

Non-Plant Products 3,78%


Total 16,96%


Non-Plant Products -


Total 22,42%



Soia

Total 24,87%



- " -72

The averages are calculated on the base of percentage variation between 2013 and 2014 in the different 51

categories, if present.


Figure 5.1.3: ANALYSIS OF THE MARKET VALUE GROWTH TREND FOR ONLY PLANT PRODUCTS WITHIN THE EIGHT FOOD CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014



Total 8,46%


Non-Plant Products -8,55%


Total 41,43%



Formaggi Base Soia

Total 20,60%




Total 34,66%



- " -73

Perc

enta

ge In

crem

ent

95

107,5

120

132,5

145

2013 2014

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti o Secondi Altre Bevande Piatte (No Gas) Latte di SoiaFresco Altri Piatti Pornti o Altri Tipi SoiaPrimi Piatti Pronti o Insalata Pasta Altri Piatti Pronti Altri Base AltroFormaggi Base Soia Latte di Soia Fresco

Interestingly, the share of the Italian food market analyzed, and especially the

plant products within the different categories, have experienced positive

consumption trends despite the critical situation of the Italian economy and

the consequent decrease in food consumptions by Italian families recorded

in the same period (May 2012 - May 2014) (Figure 5.1.4). Clearly, these two

opposite trends (general food versus plant products consumptions)

demonstrate how Italian consumers have started, at least in part, a process

of changing their own diet regimes, shifting their preferences increasingly

towards alternative sources of proteins also by spending more money for

them, despite the fact that, at the same time, they were also reducing their

expenditure for food products in general.

Figure 5.1.4: VALUE OF FOOD RETAIL AT CURRENT PRICES (2010=100) COMPARED WITH PLANT PRODUCTS PURCHASES, DE-SEASONED DATA, SELECTED PERIODS, MAY 2012 - MAY 2014

Source: ISTAT and The Nielsen Company (re-elaborated)

This positive trend is once more confirmed when looking at the balance

sheets of two of the major plant products brands presented in the Italian

food retail channel: Soya Sun and Valsoia. According to their accounts, both

of them have experienced growing trends in the last ten years: founded as an

- " -74

Mar

ket V

alue

(May

201

2 =

100)

98

106

114

122

130

Mar

ket V

alue

(201

0 =

100)

98

106

114

122

130

May

201

2Ju

ne 2

012

July

2012

Augu

st 2

012

Sept

embe

r 201

2O

ctob

er 2

012

Nove

mbe

r 201

2De

cem

ber 2

012

Janu

ary

2013

Febr

uary

201

3M

arch

201

3Ap

ril 20

13M

ay 2

013

June

201

3Ju

ly 20

13Au

gust

201

3Se

ptem

ber 2

013

Oct

ober

201

3No

vem

ber 2

013

Dece

mbe

r 201

3Ja

nuar

y 20

14Fe

brua

ry 2

014

Mar

ch 2

014

April

2014

May

201

4

Retail Food Consumption (left axis) Plant Products Consumption (right axis)

Italian branch of the French company Triballat Noyal in the year 2000, Soya

Sun underwent a growth of roughly 67% per annum on average, while

Valsoia, founded in 1990, presents a more stable business, with an annual

average growth in sales term of roughly 5% (Figure 5.1.5 and Figure 5.1.6).

Figure 5.1.5: EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE INCOMES FROM SALES OF VALSOIA S.P.A., SELECTED ACCOUNTING PERIODS, 2004 - 2013

Source: Valsoia S.p.A. (re-elaborated)

Figure 5.1.6: EVOLUTION OF CORPORATE INCOMES FROM SALES OF SOYA SUN, SELECTED ACCOUNTING PERIODS, 2004 - 2013

Source: Soya Sun (re-elaborated)

- " -75

Milli

on E

uro

0

17,5

35

52,5

70

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Milli

on E

uro

0

4,5

9

13,5

18

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

For both of them, the core business is focused on mainly three segments:

the fresh yogurt segment, where Soya Sun holds approximately 40% of

market share today and where Valsoia has a business that in 2013 account 52

for about 13 million euros (21,5% of the total sales); the heavily fragmented

soy milk segment, the second largest market in volume terms for Soya Sun

and the primary sector for Valsoia, from which it earns about 25% of its total

revenues. Both Soya Sun and Valsoia have confirmed that it is very difficult to

understand which brand has the leadership in this segment, given the strong

fragmentation among different private labels, small size brands and large

companies and the third leading market. The third important segment is

represented by plant products, for which both the companies expected the

most interesting developments.

5.2 Market Shares Analys is

Continuing with a focused approach at the company level, from a corporate

strategic and competitiveness standpoint, per se market value analysis

provides only a rough and un-detailed quick glance at the business segment.

However, today, more than ever, decision-makers in the company needs

more precise information about the positioning of the company’s brand with

respect to the competitors. Hereafter, much more useful for this purpose it is

the market share analysis (considered as the total value of sales of a brand in

comparison to the total sale in a given food category). Indeed, through

market share analysis, which is less dependent upon macroeconomic

variables, companies are able to understand from where new sales come

from (i.e. from a growth of the entire market segment or because of a

reduction of competitors’ market shares) (Farris, et al., 2010). Market share

- " -76

Soya Sun’s internal estimations52

is also closely monitored from a strategic point of view, since its variation can

embody signs of change in the competitive landscape.

Focusing on market shares analysis, in each of the eight food categories in

which plant products are present with 144 brands, namely “Fresco Altri Piatti

Pronti O Secondi”, “Altre Bevande Piatte (No Gas) Latte di Soia”, “Fresco

Altri Piatti Pronti O Altri Tipi”, “Soia”, “Primi Piatti Pronti O Insalata Pasta”,

“Altri Piatti Pronti Altri Base Altro”, “Formaggi Base Soia”, and “Latte di Soia

Fresco”, the situation for plant products exclusively is almost identical

throughout all of them: each categories is composed of two or three top

brands, which retain more than half of the business segment, while a bunch

of much smaller brands usually dished out what left (Figures 5.2.1, 5.2.2,

5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.2.5, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.2.8, 5.2.9).

Figure 5.2.1: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS, SELECTED FOOD CATEGORIES, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Food Category N. of Brands Total Mkt Value 2013

Avg Mkt Share 2013

Total Mkt Value 2014

Avg Mkt Value 2014

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti O Secondi 2 € 157.577,63 100,00% € 216.957,71 50,00%

Altre Bevande Piatte (No Gas) Latte di Soia 52 € 74.220.230,41 2,50% € 86.807.332,65 1,96%

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti O Altri Tipi 13 € 17.326.464,79 14,29% € 23.416.021,17 8,33%

Soia 10 € 27.523.700,72 12,50% € 34.367.992,00 10,00%

Primi Piatti Pronti O Insalata Pasta 35 € 3.392.414,75 5,00% € 3.731.577,81 2,94%

Altri Piatti Pronti, Altri Base Altro 23 € 2.536.081,72 4,76% € 3.586.706,45 4,55%

Formaggi Base Soia 7 € 2.026.605,29 20,00% € 2.444.021,41 14,29%

Latte di Soia Fresco 2 € 672.191,22 50,00% € 905.153,82 100,00%

- " -77

Already from this brief overview, it is clear that all the plant products industry

is growing year by year. Indeed, looking at the average market share

between 2013 and 2014, there is a reduction, meaning that more

competitors enter the segment.

Figure 5.2.2: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “FRESCO ALTRI PIATTI PRONTI O SECONDI”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Figure 5.2.3: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “ALTRE BEVANDE PIATTE (NO GAS) LATTE DI SOIA”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


!!!!

2013 2014

Top Brand % Market Share Top Brand % Market Share

C.I.A.B. 100,00% C.I.A.B. 92,43%

Stuffer 0,00% Stuffer 7,57%

2013 2014


Valsoia 24,06% Alpro Soja 23,62%

Alpro Soja 22,78% Valsoia 22,67%

Private Label 10,12% Private Label 12,08%

- " -78

Figure 5.2.4: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “FRESCO ALTRI PIATTI PRONTI O ALTRI TIPI”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Figure 5.2.5: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “SOIA”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Figure 5.2.6: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “PRIMI PIATTI PRONTI O INSALATA PASTA”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


2013 2014


C.I.A.B. 42,85% C.I.A.B. 38,91%

Sojasun 35,49% Sojasun 31,29%

Natura Nuova 16,46% Natura Nuova 12,97%

2013 2014


Yosoi 57,09% Yosoi 52,95%


Soya Life 2,57% Private Label 5,87%

2013 2014


Vivalamamma Beretta 35,17% Vivalamamma Beretta 26,25%

C.I.A.B. 13,10% Private Label 14,46%

Private Lable 12,04% B.M. 8,74%

- " -79

Figure 5.2.7: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “ALTRI PIATTI PRONTI, ALTRI BASE ALTRO”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Figure 5.2.8: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “FORMAGGI BASE SOIA”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Figure 5.2.9: MARKET SHARE ANALYSIS OF “LATTE DI SOIA FRESCO”, PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


ALTRI PIATTI PRONTI, ALTRI BASE ALTRO

2013 2014


Valsoia 40,42% Valsoia 28,66%

C.I.A.B. 14,28% Conbio 14,59%

Natura Nuova 10,47% C.I.A.B. 13,16%

2013 2014


Natura Nuova 34,10% Natura Nuova 43,14%


C.I.A.B. 20,34% C.I.A.B. 20,66%

2013 2014


Valsoia 99,68% Valsoia 100,00%

Vitasana 0,31% Vitasana 0,00%

- " -80

The picture the tables above shows, is very interesting. For example, in the

“Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti O Secondi” categories, there are only two plant

products producers, and actually, during 2013 only one was active (C.I.A.B.)

thus controlling the entire business, even if small. In the “Altre Bibite Piatte

(No Gas) Latte di Soia” category, beside the two main brands, Valsoia and

Alpro Soja and which control more than 20% of the market each, there is

also a private label, even if it has a market share of just 10% in both the two

years analyzed. The “Soja” category then, it is the only category in which,

despite a great number of producers (about 10), the first retain more than

half of the entire market, the second one follows with almost 35%, and then

all the others chase with a smaller market share (less than 5%).

5.3 Volume of Sales Analys is

Similar to the market value, also the volume of sales (in terms of quantity,

liters and kilograms) of plant products have experienced a positive trend in

the time-span analyzed. The rough total data show that, while non-plant

products experienced a positive trend of roughly 9%, plant products’ volume

has grown by almost 20% between May 2012 and May 2014 (Figure 5.3.1).

Differently from the market value analysis, volume analysis underlines that,

even if at a very rough level, Italian consumers tend to buy larger quantity of

food grade plant products compared to non-plant products, at least in the

ten categories in which plant products are present. More in details, for every

unit of volume of non-plant product bought, they purchase two unit of

volume of plant products. Interestingly, as already partially evidenced also in

the market value analysis, from the volume analysis point of view the

evidence of a slow down in non-plant products consumption is much more

- " -81

effective since the trend is negatively sloped. Oppositely, plant products are

constantly purchased in larger quantities by Italian consumers.

Figure 5.3.1: THE ITALIAN FOOD MARKET VOLUME, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS 2013, 2014


Looking more in detail at the data, and trying to identifying the trends within

the ten categories of food products available for the analysis, again, the plant

products segment shows a positive pattern of growth, which on average is of

+27,62% considering only those categories where plant products are

present, while non-plant products have decreased by 2,17% on average,

with the segment “primi piatti pronti o insalata pasta” performing negatively

also from the volume point of view (Figure 5.3.2, Figure 5.3.3).

!!!!

- " -82

Volum

e (K

ilogr

ams

or lit

ers

acco

rding

ly)

0

17.500.000

35.000.000

52.500.000

70.000.000

2013 2014


Figure 5.3.2: VOLUME VARIATION ANALYSIS OF FOOD CATEGORIES, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014



Total 9,77%




Total 18,16%




Total 23,30%



Soia

Total 28,10%




Total 7,05%




Total 33,36%



Formaggi Base Soia

Total 23,40%



- " -83


Figure 5.3.3: ANALYSIS OF THE VOLUME GROWTH TREND FOR ONLY PLANT PRODUCTS WITHIN THE TEN FOOD CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Compared to the market value analysis, the volume analysis shows that plant

products in all the categories except for “Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti o Secondi”,

“Primi Piatti Pronti O Insalata Pasta” and “Altri Piatti Pronti Altri Base Altro”,

volumes have grown more than market value.

!

!


Total 39,53%



- " -84

Perc

enta

ge In

crem

ent

95

107,5

120

132,5

145

2013 2014


5.4 Package Volumes of Sales Analys is

From the very side of consumers, the sales of packages have experienced

the same increase identified both for the market value and the pure volume.

This data, however, is much more interesting from a marketing analysis point

of view since it provide a sharper image over consumers’ purchasing

behavior.

Globally, during the period analyzed, the number of non-plant products

packages purchased has grown by 9,38%, while the number of plant

products packages purchased has increased by 23,11% (Figure 5.4.1). In

percentage terms, the number of packages of plant products purchased has

grown more than both market value and volume, thus demonstrating that,

proportionally speaking, the increase in the number of packages purchased

by Italian consumers was larger than the increase in price exercised by plant

product producers.

Figure 5.4.1: THE ITALIAN FOOD MARKET PACKAGE VOLUME, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS 2013, 2014


- " -85

Num

ebr o

f pac

kage

s pu

rcha

sed

0

35.000.000

70.000.000

105.000.000

140.000.000

2013 2014


In other words, the average Italian consumers, in two years time, beside

purchasing the same number of packages of non-plant products, she or he

has increased by one fourth the purchases of plant products packages.

Considering the eight food categories separately, the trend is very similar to

the ones outlined in the two previous analyses: plant products within the

food categories have grown on average by 30,56%. Oppositely, non-plant

products have experienced a slowdown in consumption, with a negative

trend of -2,21% on average, and with two categories that have accounted

for negative values (e.g. “fresco altri piatti pronti o altri tipi” “olio di semi di

soia” and “primi piatti pronti o insalata pasta”) (Figure 5.4.2 and Figure 5.4.3).

Figure 5.4.2: PACKAGE VOLUME VARIATION ANALYSIS OF FOOD CATEGORIES, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014



Total 10,12%




Total 17,09%




Total 28,26%



Soia

Total 30,72%



- " -86


Figure 5.4.3: ANALYSIS OF THE VOLUME GROWTH TREND FOR ONLY PLANT PRODUCTS WITHIN THE TEN FOOD CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013 - 2014



Total 14,51%




Total 41,68%



Formaggi Base Soia

Total 21,73%




Total 39,13%



- " -87

Perc

enta

ge In

crem

ent

95

107,5

120

132,5

145

2013 2014


5.5 Pr ice Var iat ion Analys is

Beside volumes and market value analyses, it is important to understand also

which pattern prices have experienced in the period analyzed, in order to

better comprehend the fundamentals that stand behind the plant product

segment.

As a whole, analyzing the price per package, which is the price that

consumers see on the label of the products on the shelves in the

supermarkets and which is one of the most important factors that trigger the

purchase, all the eight categories analyzed have experienced a decrease in

prices between May 2012 and May 2014. Indeed, using a weighted average

calculation, the 806 non-plant products in the database have shown a price

reduction of 1,98%, or about 7 cents, from 3,67 euro in 2013 to 3,60 euro

the year after, while plant products saw their prices fell by 2,41% or 8 cents,

from a weighted average price of 3,10 euro per package in 2013, to 3,02

euro per package in 2014 (Figure 5.5.1).

Figure 5.5.1: THE ITALIAN FOOD MARKET PACKAGE PRICE VARIATION, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS 2013 - 2014


- " -88

€ pe

r pac

kage

2

2,5

3

3,5

4

2013 2014


Noteworthy is the price difference between the two segments and its stability

between 2013 and 2014. In fact, both in 2013 and in 2014 the weighted

average non-plant products price was 1,2 times higher than the average

plant products price.

At this point, it is important to highlight that among the eight different food

categories price variation is very volatile, thus demanding a separate and

punctual analysis of each of them (Figure 5.5.2).

Figure 5.5.2: PRICE VARIATION ANALYSIS OF FOOD CATEGORIES, PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014

Product Category Item Type Price in 2013 Price in 2014 2013 - 2014 % Variation


Plant Products € 3,53 € 3,61 2,27%

Non-Plant Products € 3,46 € 3,30 -4,62%

Altre Bevande Piatte (No Gas)

Latte di Soia

Plant Products € 1,94 € 1,92 -1,03%

Non-Plant Products - - -%


Plant Products € 3,14 € 3,01 -4,14%

Non-Plant Products € 5,98 € 6,89 15,22%

SoiaPlant Products € 1,64 € 1,56 -4,88%



Plant Products € 3,35 € 3,24 -3,28%

Non-Plant Products € 2,91 € 3,38 16,15%


Plant Products € 3,30 € 3,22 -2,42%


Formaggi Base Soia

Plant Products € 2,85 € 2,83 -0,70%


- " -89


Where available, data shows very interesting numbers: in the category

labeled “Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti o Secondi” plant products’ prices have

increased by more than 2% in a year, while those of non-plant products

decreased by a double percentage term. Oppositely, in the category “Fresco

Altri Piatti Pronti o Altri Tipi”, while plant products’ prices declined more than

4% in twelve months, non-plant products’ prices have increased by 15%.

The same occurred in the category “Primi Piatti Pronti O Insalata Pasta”.

Interestingly, the comparison among plant products’ prices, non-plant

products’ prices and inflation’s trend in Italy (Figure 5.5.3) shows that, while

inflation rose throughout the entire period, both plant and non-plant products

have experienced a decline in their prices, thus confirming once again the

general downward trend highlighted at the beginning of the paragraph.

Figure 5.5.3: INFLATION (2010=100), PLANT PRODUCTS’ PRICES AND NON-PLANT PRODUCTS’ PRICES, SELECTED PERIODS, MAY 2012 - MAY 2014

Source: ISTAT and The Nielsen Company (re-elaborated)


Plant Products € 2,81 € 2,72 -3,20%


- " -90

Mar

ket V

alue

(May

201

2 =

100)

95

98,25

101,5

104,75

108

Mar

ket V

alue

(201

0 =

100)

95

98,25

101,5

104,75

108

May 20

12

July 2

012

Septem

ber 2

012

Novembe

r 201

2

Janua

ry 20

13

March 2

013

May 20

13

July 2

013

Septem

ber 2

013

Novembe

r 201

3

Janua

ry 20

14

March 2

014

May 20

14

Food Retail Prices (Inflation) (left axis) Plant Products Prices (right axis)Non-Plant Products Prices (right axis)

Looking only to the percentage variation prices for plant products

experienced in the time span analyzed, while for market value, volume and

number of packages sold the trend is positive and well delineated, for price

the situation is much more jeopardized, with some increases but also almost

flat as well as negative patterns (Figure 5.5.4).

For example, while the category “Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti o Secondi” was the

only to experienced a growth, and the categories “Altre Bevande Piatte (No

Gas) Latte di Soia” and “Formaggi Base Soia” have declined by less than

1%, all the others has seen its price fall by a maximum of 5% in just one

year.

Figure 5.5.4: ANALYSIS OF THE PRICE TREND FOR ONLY PLANT PRODUCTS WITHIN THE TEN FOOD CATEGORIES, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


- " -91

Perc

enta

ge In

crem

ent

95

97

99

101

103

2013 2014


5.6 Distr ibut ion Channels Analys is

Moving towards the distribution channels analysis, looking at the data, which

provide an explosion of the single figures according the preferred distribution

channel utilized in the purchase of plant products by Italian consumers, what

appears to be crystal clear at a first glance is the fact that consumers usually

buy plant products in hypermarkets and supermarkets, while smaller shops

and discounts are not among the main preferences of Italian consumers for

this kind of purchases.

Before looking more deeply into the data, it is important to clarify the

methodology behind the figures. According to The Nielsen Company the

point of sales are classified in different categories on the basis of square

meters of selling area. More in details, the different selling channels of the

large scale retailers are the following: - Hypermarket: a sale structure with an area bigger than 2.500 m2; - Supermarket: a sale structure with an area between 400 and 2.500 m2; - Superette: a sale structure with an area between 100 and 400 m2; - Discount: a sale structure where the products selection is unbranded; - Traditional grocery: small shops with a sale area smaller than 100 m2.

As a consequence of this classification, looking at the aggregate data, given

all the items accounted in the eight food categories analyzed, in 2014,

34,86% of the food products were sold through hypermarkets, 39,76%

through supermarkets, 10,39% through superettes, 11,61% through

discounts and the remaining 3,38 through traditional grocery. Interestingly

enough, by dividing plant products from non-plant products, the figure does

not change too much. In 2014 plant products were mainly sold through

supermarkets (41,55%), then hypermarkets (36,40%), superettes (9,88%),

discounts (9,62%) and residually traditional groceries (2,55%). As far as non-

plant products are concerned, they are mostly purchased in supermarkets

- " -92

(38,04%), followed by hypermarkets (33,37%), discounts (13,54%),

superettes (10,88%) and finally traditional groceries (4,18%).

The differences between the two product segments are not so marketed,

even if noteworthy. Indeed, while for hyper and supermarkets and superettes

the data do not show great variations, with a percentage difference of

roughly 3% between plant products and non-plant products, as far as

discounts and traditional grocery are concerned, differences are bigger. The

average Italian consumer prefers to buy non-plant products more than plant

products in discounts (13,54% versus 9,62%), as well as in traditional

grocery, where, however, the numbers show a greater variability (4,18%

versus 2,55%).

Comparing the 2014 data with the ones from the previous year, the figure

does confirm the positive trend of the entire food sector in the large scale

retailers business, while for traditional grocery data confirm its crisis.

Hypermarkets, supermarkets and discounts increased their shares

(+11,95%, +16,19% and +13,37% respectively) to the detriment of

superettes and traditional grocery (+0,12% and -12,26% respectively).

More in details, analyzing the two subcategories, plant products and non-

plant products, the data shows that, while plant products purchases

increases at double figures in all the different distribution channels, for non-

plant products the increases were around 5% in hypermarkets, supermarket

and discounts, but they were negative in superettes (-9,34%) and in

traditional groceries (-18,14) (Figure 5.6.1, Figure 5.6.2). This last number,

beside to provide another evidence of the general decrease of food

consumptions in Italy (see earlier), more interestingly it provides another clue

that confirm the crisis afflicting small local retailers and traditional groceries in

the downtowns of Italian cities. Those forms of retailing in fact, are

cannibalized by large shopping malls and huge hypermarkets where people

can easily find everything they need without moving throughout different

small shops along the road of the city centers.

- " -93

Figure 5.6.1: DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL VARIATION ANALYSIS OF FOOD CATEGORIES (AGGREGATED), PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Figure 5.6.2: DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL VARIATION ANALYSIS OF FOOD CATEGORIES (AGGREGATED), PLANT PRODUCTS VERSUS NON-PLANT PRODUCTS, SELECTED PERIODS, 2013, 2014


Interestingly, it is important to underline the shift experienced by plant

products in recent years. First, when plant products were still a niche market

for vegans, this kind of food used to be sold in very dedicated retail shops

Distribution Channel2013 - 2014 Percentage Variation

Total Plant Products Non-Plant Products

Hypermarket 11,95% 19,96% 4,59%

Supermarket 16,19% 25,39% 7,85%

Superette 0,12% 13,64% -9,34%

Discount 13,37% 28,55% 4,87%

Traditional Grocery -12,26% 0,68% -18,43%

- " -94

Perc

enta

ge V

ariat

ion

-22,5

-15

-7,5

0

7,5

15

22,5

30

Hypermarket Supermarket Superette Discount Traditional Grocery

Plant Products Non-Plant Products

focused exclusively or mainly on vegan nutrition. At that time, about ten to

five years ago, the distribution was very limited and consumers needed to

know (usually through word-of-mouth and the Internet) where these specific

shops were located. Today instead, plant products are almost mainstream

consumption products and large retail chains are investing more and more

shelf-space for them. Data above in fact, do confirm this trend.

- " -95

6. Consumers’ Att i tude Towards GMOs

In plant products soybean plays a crucial role since the very large majority of

these products are made out of this oilseed. Soybeans is a unique source of

nutrition for two reasons: first, its high content in proteins, which make a

good alternative to meat, and second (Akhisa and Kokke, 1991), because of

the presence of another micronutrient, phytosterols, which are organic

molecules belonging to the sub-group of steroids (together with cholesterol)

that have the crucial capacity to block cholesterol absorption sites in the

human intestine, thus helping to reduce cholesterol level in humans.

Despite all those positive aspects however, soybean still remains a very hot

topic among consumers and in the scientific community because of the

genetic modifications applied to it. More in details, the controversy over

GMOs regards mainly their use in food production, whether or not GM food

should be labeled, the role of government regulators, and the effect of GM

on health and the environment.

From the legislative point of view, there are differences in the regulation of

genetically modified organisms between countries, with some of the most

marked differences occurring between the US and Europe. In the case of the

European Union, it differentiates between approval for cultivation of GM

crops within the EU borders and approval of importing and processing GM

products. At the moment, according to the European legislation (Directive

2001/18/EC and Regulations 1829/2003/EC and 1830/2003/EC), nobody is

allowed to cultivate non-approved GM crops and to introduce products that

are not allowed by the legislator within European borders. Additionally, for

those allowed GM crops, there is a strict regulation that define the procedure

for authorizing the introduction in Europe of new varieties of GM crops, and

- " -96

define all the labeling and traceability obligations related to those GM

products. At the national level, Italy, being a member of the European Union,

is oblige to adopt the European set of legislations, even if the penetration of

GM crops in Italy has been strongly opposed by different ministries of

agricultural policy. At the end, beside the prohibition to crop GM plants and

the possibility to import and to process GM products, in Italy, as well as in

Europe, it is allowed just a accidental contamination with GMs not bigger

than 0,9%.

From the consumer point of view, GM food is still the Achilles’ heel of

biotechnology. Indeed, a Eurobarometer survey (Gaskell et al., 2010) 53

commissioned by the European Commission shows a declining support

towards genetically modified organisms across many of the EU Member

States.

While entrenched views about GM food are still evident among European

consumers, the decline in confidence towards technology and its regulation

that characterized the 1990s following to the BSE and the contaminated

blood scandals, is no longer the dominant perspective. Despite everything

however, European consumers do no reject innovation in total and focusing

just on biotechnology, at a general level, Europeans are optimistic about it

(53% of the sample, with another 20% that say “don’t know”). Interestingly

enough, Austria and Germany were the two countries less optimistic about

biotechnology. Indeed, from the GM point of view, those two countries,

together with Switzerland, are strongly opponent of GM soybean use in the

entire productive chains of feed and food products.

Unfortunately, it is by looking exclusively at the European consumers’ attitude

towards GMOs instead, that the survey reveals the most negative results.

In fact, even if the majority of the interviewed have declared to familiar with

GM food (nearly 50% had already heard about it before the survey and also

- " -97

The Eurobarometer survey was based on representative samples from 32 European countries and 53

conducted in February 2010.

they had already talked or searched for information about it and only about

18% have not heard of it before the interview), thus reflecting the continued

media attention of the issue (Figure 6.1), looking at the levels of support for

GM food for EU27 in 2010, it results that in 2010, 27% of the surveyed

European consumers do support GMOs, while almost a double percentage

(57%) were not willing to support genetically modified food. Compering these

data with a previous survey dated back to 2005 for EU25 what emerges is

that there are no substantial changes in the public perception (Figure 6.2). In

addition, in order to better understand what may be driving the European

consensus against GMOs, the survey has identified four different dimensions:

beneficial, safe, inequitable and unnatural. Scores range from -1,5 to 1,5,

where -1,5 indicates low perceived benefit, low safety, and absence of both

inequity and worry; and 1,5 indicates high perceived benefit, high safety, high

inequity and high worry (Figure 6.3). As a consequence, contrary to scientific

and industry opinion, the European public see GM food as not offering any

benefits, as unsafe, inequitable and worrying. On average opponents

outnumber supporters by three to one, and in no country is there a majority

of supporters.

Figure 6.1: AWARENESS OF GM FOOD, EU27, 2010

Source: European Commission, Directorate-General for Research (re-elaborated)

- " -98

9%

46% 27%

18%

Not heard Heard onlyTalked about or searched for information occasionally Talked about or searche for information frequently

Figure 6.2: SUPPORT FOR GM FOOD, EU27, COMPARISON BETWEEN 2010 AND 2005


Figure 6.3: PERCEPTIONS OF GM FOOD AS BENEFICIAL, SAFE, INEQUITABLE AND UNNATURAL, EU27


Note that while the first two indices are framed negatively, with high scores

indicating concerns views about the technology, whereas the second two

indices are framed positively, with high scores indicating positiveness about

the technology. Interestingly, the dimension that most differentiates

- " -99

2010, EU27

2005, EU25

0 25 50 75 100

16%

16%

33%

28%

28%

29%

18%

21%

5%

6%

Totally agree Tend to agree Tend to disagree Totally disagree Don't know

Rang

e of

Per

cept

ion

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

Beneficial Safe Inequitable Unnatural

Overall Supporters Opponents

supporters and opponents is the issue of safety. Supporters of GMOs are

convinced that GM food is equitable and worry-free, while the views of

opponents run in the opposite direction, suggesting that the risk assessment

for GMOs in place according to EU rules is not considered valid, or, in

addition, indicating an entrenched attitudinal association between GM food

and a lack of safety, notwithstanding institutional efforts to demonstrate the

opposite.

Analyzing the evolution of the consensus towards GMOs across the period

1996 - 2010, and looking at the percentage of respondents who agree or

totally agree that GM foods should be encouraged both in Europe and in

Italy, albeit with fluctuations, a downward trend in the percentage of

supporters is evident, both and equally in Italy and at the European level

(Figure 6.4)

Figure 6.4: TREND IN SUPPORT FOR GM FOOD, EUROPE VERSUS ITALY, SELECTED PERIODS, 1996, 1999, 2002, 2005, 2010


In conclusion, from this Euromonitor survey emerges that what is driving the

continued opposition to GM food is mainly the public concerns about safety.

- " -100

Perc

enta

ge o

f res

pond

eds

0

15

30

45

60

1996 1999 2002 2005 2010

Italy Europe (average)

Conclus ions

This dissertation have dealt with the market analysis of vegetable proteins,

with the main aim to understand if the recent growing trend the plant

products segment is experiencing will be just a “meteor” in the sky of the

food industry or if it will become a new solid market segment.

After having summarized the literature currently available on the topic, and

having underline the absence of a strong lode of economic and marketing

publications related to the plant products market, the dissertation introduced

a brief analysis on the evolution of consumer behavior in recent years. In

relation to that, evidences confirmed that consumer behavior has changed,

with consumers that nowadays are much more aware of what they eat and

how they eat, taking into consideration also the consequences of their

purchasing actions, not just from the family balance (i.e. economic) point of

view, but also, and more often, from an ethical, environmental, personal

health and social perspective. In other words, consumers are starting to

realize that even their diets have an impact on the entire global system. This

new attitude then is shaping the food industry with new trends, which are

much more related to an healthier diet, to the “free-from” paradigm, to

nutraceutics, to simplicity and traditions of nutrients, to traceability and

freshness of the products.

Afterwards, the expected global scenario for 2050 is presented. In this

section, the analysis focuses on how the world will be in 2050. According the

forecasts, the population is expected to be 33% larger than it was in 2013,

with the largest increments expected to occur in the developing part of the

world. Despite this growing trend however, at world level population is

forecast to age, with the number of people aged 60 or over in 2050 that will

be double 2013 levels. From the urbanization point of view, urban population

will be double of the rural population at world level in 2050.

- " -101

Then, the increasing in the number of people expected to be alive in 2050,

together with the forecasts of a general aging of the world population and an

increasing in urban population are evidences that support the expected

increase in per capita food consumption from 2013 toward 2050.

From the supply point of view, the expected growth in population and life-

expectancy will not be support by a proportional increase in land and water

availability, but data show that in 2050 the growing demand for food will be

satisfy by higher agricultural yields, thus avoiding any catastrophic

Malthusian Trap, at least in theory.

In the next chapter, vegetable sources of proteins were introduced. Here one

of the main strength point of these products was underlined: their lower

environmental impact when compared to animal sources. Afterwards, a

comparison between plant products and non-plant products was provided

thus to demonstrate that the protein contribution of plant products is high

enough to substitute, at least partially, meat and other non-plant sources of

proteins. In addition, before moving to the core of the dissertation, a quick

historical background of plant-originated proteins was provided, thus

underlining that, despite the fact that these sources of proteins seems to be

new in the consumer’s eyes, actually plant products were part of humans’

food regimes since ever.

In the chapter of the Italian market analysis then, data provided have showed

that this market segment is growing very fast, with a per annum increment

of its market value between 2013 and 2014 of more than 21% at aggregate

level . The interesting aspect of these findings is the fact that it occurred 54

despite the crisis that hit the Italian food industry in the last 7 years, and the

general reduction of prices. Indeed, according to price variation analysis,

plant products’ prices have fallen by less than 2%, while, in the same period,

non-plant products have seen their prices decrease by 2,41%.

- " -102

The same positive trend is confirmed also when looking at volumes of sales data54

The dissertation provided also a market share analysis, which highlight a sort

of bipolar situation: beside two or three large brands that control more than

half of the market, there is a series of very small and tiny brands that retain

the rest.

In addition, the data provided have allowed also a distribution channels

analysis. Very briefly, numeric evidences showed that Italian consumers

usually buy plant products mainly in hypermarkets and supermarkets, with

both these distribution channels experiencing a growing share of preferences

between 2013 and 2014.

Before the conclusion, the dissertation dealt also with really an hot topic

when speaking about plant products and especially soybean-based plant

products: consumers’ attitude towards GMOs. From an Eurobarometer

survey, what emerged was that, both at European and at Italian levels,

consumers’ consensus towards GMOs is diminishing year after year, with the

large majority of people that currently believe GM products to be less safer

than conventional products, which, oppositely, are considered much more

beneficial and natural.

Proteins has always been an essential part of human nutrition since the

appearance of the very first human communities. Throughout history, the

humankind have assumed these nutrients both from animals and from plants

according to different cooking traditions: in Asia, rice and its derivatives were

the main source of proteins, while in Italy, during the Medieval Age, beans

were known as the “meat of the poor” for the very large majority of

population. Today instead, meat, together with fish and dairy products, are

the primary source of proteins in the developed part of the world while plant

products are seen just as a niche market segment reserved for dieters and

vegans, or as unusual for the average consumer.

In the future however, given the expectations in terms of population’s growth,

aging trends, urbanization levels, future per capita food consumption

- " -103

paradigms and all the other parameters related to the supply point of view

(i.d. land and water availability, soil fertility and agricultural yields), the current

nutritional habits are expected not to be sustainable and practicable 55

anymore. In this perspective, the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition’s

Double Pyramid Model clearly points out what must be the new trends and,

at the same time, it anticipates the changes in consumer behaviors, which

are increasingly based on heating consciously and responsibly, keeping in

mind health aspects, environmental impacts as well as future generations.

This will mean that the average consumer will shape his or her food regimes

considering sustainability as a 360 degrees-wide concept that embraces not

only environment, but also ethics, and social/economic aspects.

As a result, if on one side, the situation depicted for the world in 2050 will

not as dramatic as the one expected by Malthus and all the other

catastrophist authors, on the opposite side, I personally think that, from the

diet habits perspective, human population, and especially the western part of

the world and Italy within it, will not be forced and will not be able to

completely shifts their food regime towards plant sources of proteins. My

personal idea is much more in line with the Latin adage “in media stat virtus”

(virtue stands in the middle): average consumers will eat tofu, seitan or a

veggy burger twice/thrice a week thus alternating plant products with non-

plant products like fish and meat, but they will not shift completely to a

vegetarian or vegan diet regimes because the heritage of the past and the

culture of food will be still to strong and will lock consumers in. Indeed, the

practice to mix plant and non-plant foods, beside lowering the environmental

impact of the average consumer’s diet, will also avoid to lose the Italian

culinary traditions, which are deeply rooted in each Italian family and which

represent the bulwark of Italian culture for which Italy is worldwide famous.

- " -104

Meaning able to continue for a long time 55

As a consequence, plant food products will inevitably expand in the next

years, with a growing number of consumers that will be attracted, or even

forced for health reasons, towards this market segment, which will then start

to became usual to consumers and not just a niche. Actually, this approach

of adaptation and of acknowledgment towards the plant products’ segment

has already started. Indeed, an attentive consumer will remember that just

two years ago (2012), while walking along the corridors of the Italian most

famous large-scale retailers’ supermarkets, it was almost impossible to incur

into a shelf dedicated to alternative sources of proteins (i.e. plant products)

beside the Valsoia products for the Italian case. Oppositely today, plant

products’ presence in the shelves have increased a lot, with a consequent

heavily increment in their advertising.

For sure this is another evidence, together with the new tendency in

consumer behavior and beside analytical data, that confirm how fast and

how strongly the plant products segment is growing in Italy, which is a

difficult country to penetrate given the current economic crisis and the

deflation that are worsening the consumers’ purchasing habits and because

of a very strong culinary tradition, which is rooted in centuries of traditional

recipes.

From a more general point of view, another interesting conclusion has to be

made. It is related to the food price trends over the last decades. The fact

that agriculture has experienced two big price spikes in less than four years

(one in 2008 and one in 2012), with riots and turmoils in many developing

countries caused by the lack of foodstuff, suggests that something new is

reshaping the world's food chain. In addition to that, in recent years, some of

the most popular television programs are cooking shows: that may point to a

healthy interest in food, but it can also remember the Roman Republic’s

decline. Indeed, according to the Roman historian Livy (27-25 B.C.), the

Roman Empire started to decay when cooks acquired celebrity status.

- " -105

As a consequence, since food is so important, not only from the nutritional

point of view, but also from a more geo-political standpoint, farmers are

asked to do more than just produce food. Agriculture, and the food industry

in general, are central to reducing hunger, but in the meantime, their are also

responsible for the opposite problem: obesity. As a consequence a new and

wider in scope dilemma arises: “What should we have for lunch?” versus “Will there be anything for lunch?” If answering to the initial question “will people be used to eat tofu, seitan or

veggy burger in the next decades?” has been an easy task, the analysis used

to answer to it has points out a new, more profound question marks that will

hardly find an easy answer. Indeed, too much interests are on the table, and

even if traditional and organic farming could feed Europeans and Americans

well, I think it cannot feed the rest of the world. Out of it then, it is necessary

to find out ways to boost yields of the main crops, because of the

constraints in land and water terms, thus to decrease up to zero the number

of people living undernourished, but at the same time, and this is the biggest

challenge, to do so according sustainability parameters in order to keep the

world safe and healthy for future generations.

- " -106

Database F igures

Market Var iat ion Analys is

- " -i

Sou

rce:

The

Nie

lsen

Com

pany

(re-

elab

orat

ed)

Abs

olut

e Va

lue

Per

cent

age

Valu

eM

arke

t Val

ueP

erce

ntag

e Va

lue

Mar

ket V

alue

Per

cent

age

Valu

eΔM

kt V

alue

Δ%M

kt V

alue

Tota

l1.

258

10

0,00

%25

8.04

7.84

6,24

10

0,00

%29

0.36

6.04

8,08

10

0,00

%32

.318

.201

,84

+ 12

,52%

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

452

35,9

3%12

7.85

5.24

6,53

49

,55%

155.

475.

763,

02

53,5

4%27

.620

.516

,49

+ 21

,60%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

806

64,0

7%13

0.19

2.59

9,71

50

,45%

134.

890.

285,

06

46,4

6%4.

697.

685,

35

+ 3,

61%

ITA

LIA

N M

AR

KET

VA

LUE

VAR

IATI

ON

AN

ALY

SIS

Tota

l

2013

2014

2013

-201

4

Tota

l59

610

0,00

%11

9.10

3.68

9,15

10

0,00

%12

3.63

9.22

2,35

10

0,00

%4.

535.

533,

20

+ 3,

81%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Seco

ndi

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

40,

67%

157.

577,

63

0,

13%

216.

957,

71

0,

18%

59.3

80,0

8

+

37,6

8%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

592

99,3

3%11

8.94

6.11

1,52

99

,87%

123.

422.

264,

64

99,8

2%4.

476.

153,

12

+ 3,

76%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Seco

ndi

Tota

l14

110

0,00

%74

.220

.230

,41

100,

00%

86.8

07.3

32,6

5

10

0,00

%12

.587

.102

,24

+ 16

,96%

Altre

Bev

. Piat

te (N

o

Gas

) Lat

te d

i Soi

a

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

141

100,

00%

74.2

20.2

30,4

1

10

0,00

%86

.807

.332

,65

100,

00%

12.5

87.1

02,2

4

+

16,9

6%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%Al

tre B

ev. P

iatte

(No

Gas

) Lat

te d

i Soi

a

Tota

l25

610

0,00

%28

.266

.410

,85

100,

00%

34.6

03.7

21,2

6

10

0,00

%6.

337.

310,

41

+ 22

,42%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Altri

Tip

i

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

6224

,22%

17.3

26.4

64,7

9

61

,30%

23.4

16.0

21,1

7

67

,67%

6.08

9.55

6,38

+

35,1

5%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

194

75,7

8%10

.939

.946

,06

38,7

0%11

.187

.700

,09

32,3

3%24

7.75

4,03

+ 2,

26%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Altri

Tip

i

Soia

Tota

l75

100,

00%

27.5

23.7

00,7

2

10

0,00

%34

.367

.992

,00

100,

00%

6.84

4.29

1,28

+

24,8

7%

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

7510

0,00

%27

.523

.700

,72

100,

00%

34.3

67.9

92,0

0

10

0,00

%6.

844.

291,

28

+ 24

,87%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%

Soia

Tota

l10

610

0,00

%3.

698.

956,

88

100,

00%

4.01

1.89

8,14

10

0,00

%31

2.94

1,26

+ 8,

46%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pr

onti

O

Insa

lata

Past

aP

lant

Pro

duct

s95

89,6

2%3.

392.

414,

75

91,7

1%3.

731.

577,

81

93,0

1%33

9.16

3,06

+ 10

,00%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

1110

,38%

306.

542,

13

8,

29%

280.

320,

33

6,

99%

26.2

21,8

0-

- 8

,55%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pr

onti

O

Insa

lata

Past

a

Tota

l56

100,

00%

2.53

6.06

1,72

10

0,00

%3.

586.

706,

45

100,

00%

1.05

0.64

4,73

+

41,4

3%

Altri

Piat

ti Pr

onti

Altri

Base

Altr

oP

lant

Pro

duct

s56

100,

00%

2.53

6.06

1,72

10

0,00

%3.

586.

706,

45

100,

00%

1.05

0.64

4,73

+

41,4

3%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%Al

tri P

iatti

Pron

ti Al

tri

Base

Altr

o

Tota

l17

100,

00%

2.02

6.60

5,29

10

0,00

%2.

444.

021,

41

100,

00%

417.

416,

12

+

20,6

0%

Form

aggi

Bas

e So

ia

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

1710

0,00

%2.

026.

605,

29

100,

00%

2.44

4.02

1,41

10

0,00

%41

7.41

6,12

+ 20

,60%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%Fo

rmag

gi B

ase

Soia

Tota

l2

100,

00%

672.

191,

22

10

0,00

%90

5.15

3,82

100,

00%

232.

962,

60

+

34,6

6%

Latte

di S

oia

Fres

co

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

210

0,00

%67

2.19

1,22

100,

00%

905.

153,

82

10

0,00

%23

2.96

2,60

+ 34

,66%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%La

tte d

i Soi

a Fr

esco

Market Share Analys is

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

- " -ii

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013VALSOIA 17.860.251,22€ 24,06%ALPRO SOJA 16.907.574,62€ 22,78%PL CORE 7.511.468,50€ 10,12%VITASOYA 6.745.402,97€ 9,09%CEREAL 5.496.259,19€ 7,41%SOJASUN 5.382.911,94€ 7,25%SOYA LIFE 1.879.397,35€ 2,53%PL GREEN 1.289.067,25€ 1,74%SOYOUNG 1.283.200,37€ 1,73%HAPPY SOYA 1.274.048,87€ 1,72%VITA SLYM 1.157.741,11€ 1,56%FIOR DI SOIA 975.385,32€ 1,31%JOYA 921.276,32€ 1,24%VITAL NATURE 858.655,96€ 1,16%SOYA NAT 842.287,19€ 1,13%SOLE E NATURA 753.943,36€ 1,02%NUTRIMY 472.207,37€ 0,64%ENERVIT PROTEIN 470.883,89€ 0,63%ALCE NERO 457.886,72€ 0,62%MATT&BIOFUNCTION 442.426,83€ 0,60%ECOLIFE 384.688,25€ 0,52%MR.NATURE 194.823,42€ 0,26%BIO S.L.Y.M. 134.481,74€ 0,18%MATT&FUNCTION 133.432,66€ 0,18%SOJA DRINK 125.897,88€ 0,17%SOYA SOLEIL 52.982,37€ 0,07%BIOTREND 38.268,86€ 0,05%PROSOJA 34.114,63€ 0,05%NATURA NUOVA 28.923,75€ 0,04%BJORG 28.370,35€ 0,04%BUON PER TE 26.465,21€ 0,04%FIORENTINI 24.821,79€ 0,03%BIBE SOIA 10.506,90€ 0,01%ENERZONA 6.136,21€ 0,01%SOYDREAM 4.734,04€ 0,01%SOY 3.707,68€ 0,00%MISURA 3.098,01€ 0,00%KI 999,26€ 0,00%SOYALET 986,86€ 0,00%PROVAMEL 514,19€ 0,00%CENTR.TORINO -€ 0,00%CENTR.VICENZA -€ 0,00%CENTRO LATTE RAPALLO -€ 0,00%IO VEG -€ 0,00%ISOLA BIO -€ 0,00%PL PRIMO PREZZO -€ 0,00%PROBIOS -€ 0,00%SOIA&RISOSI' -€ 0,00%SOIASI' -€ 0,00%SOLANDIA -€ 0,00%TERRA E PANE -€ 0,00%VIVIBIO , 0,00%TOTAL 74.220.230,41€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 2,50%

Altre Bev. Piatte (No Gas) Latte di Soia

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

- " -iii

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014ALPRO SOJA 20.506.502,87€ 23,62%VALSOIA 19.677.126,75€ 22,67%PL CORE 10.486.900,01€ 12,08%VITASOYA 7.276.937,16€ 8,38%CEREAL 6.522.487,11€ 7,51%SOJASUN 5.673.977,73€ 6,54%SOYA LIFE 2.467.321,37€ 2,84%PL GREEN 2.179.158,62€ 2,51%HAPPY SOYA 1.949.159,97€ 2,25%VITA SLYM 1.296.496,16€ 1,49%JOYA 1.083.717,97€ 1,25%SOYA NAT 1.052.637,10€ 1,21%FIOR DI SOIA 1.018.459,40€ 1,17%SOLE E NATURA 906.463,82€ 1,04%VITAL NATURE 895.840,20€ 1,03%ALCE NERO 613.162,10€ 0,71%SOYOUNG 572.887,58€ 0,66%ECOLIFE 469.419,75€ 0,54%NUTRIMY 383.366,79€ 0,44%ENERVIT PROTEIN 377.896,01€ 0,44%MATT&BIOFUNCTION 329.149,53€ 0,38%MR.NATURE 172.392,98€ 0,20%CENTR.TORINO 117.417,60€ 0,14%CENTR.VICENZA 114.872,07€ 0,13%BIO S.L.Y.M. 99.884,22€ 0,12%SOLANDIA 89.412,34€ 0,10%MATT&FUNCTION 71.185,45€ 0,08%SOYA SOLEIL 65.714,41€ 0,08%SOJA DRINK 48.872,23€ 0,06%NATURA NUOVA 43.304,30€ 0,05%BJORG 39.171,38€ 0,05%BIOTREND 37.137,88€ 0,04%PROBIOS 29.619,55€ 0,03%FIORENTINI 24.404,37€ 0,03%TERRA E PANE 21.792,47€ 0,03%PL PRIMO PREZZO 16.655,38€ 0,02%IO VEG 15.265,97€ 0,02%BUON PER TE 13.197,54€ 0,02%BIBE SOIA 9.854,61€ 0,01%CENTRO LATTE RAPALLO 9.047,01€ 0,01%SOYDREAM 5.954,47€ 0,01%PROVAMEL 4.506,85€ 0,01%SOIASI' 4.140,03€ 0,00%ENERZONA 3.969,65€ 0,00%SOYALET 3.395,89€ 0,00%VIVIBIO 1.894,50€ 0,00%SOY 1.662,90€ 0,00%KI 1.392,44€ 0,00%SOIA&RISOSI' 1.118,03€ 0,00%ISOLA BIO 826,35€ 0,00%MISURA 201,78€ 0,00%PROSOJA -€ 0,00%TOTAL 86.807.332,65€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 1,96%

Altre Bev. Piatte (No Gas) Latte di Soia

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

- " -iv

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013VALSOIA 1.025.064,10€ 40,42%C.I.A.B. 362.181,82€ 14,28%NATURA NUOVA 265.650,54€ 10,47%LUNIROLO 202.880,97€ 8,00%CONBIO 147.600,77€ 5,82%LUNIGIANA ALIM. 137.144,38€ 5,41%CERRETO 100.563,55€ 3,97%GERMOGLI DELLA CINA 92.400,37€ 3,64%CEREAL 92.238,85€ 3,64%B.M. 29.890,98€ 1,18%LA NUOVA GASTRONOMIA 22.375,26€ 0,88%GO TAN 14.621,21€ 0,58%FORMA&NATURA 14.367,99€ 0,57%BIRKO 9.914,92€ 0,39%FIORENTINI 7.203,49€ 0,28%BONTA' & SALUTE 5.783,56€ 0,23%ALMAVERDE 2.002,66€ 0,08%IL FIOR DI LOTO 1.502,00€ 0,06%BORGHINI 1.131,76€ 0,04%NUOVA ORSA MAGGIORE 841,70€ 0,03%DROGHERIA&ALIMENTARI 700,84€ 0,03%SAPORI DEL BORGO -€ 0,00%TA TUNG -€ 0,00%TOTAL 2.536.061,72€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 4,76%

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014VALSOIA 1.027.973,88€ 28,66%CONBIO 523.319,90€ 14,59%C.I.A.B. 471.847,31€ 13,16%CEREAL 346.561,55€ 9,66%NATURA NUOVA 286.462,47€ 7,99%ALMAVERDE 223.054,43€ 6,22%LUNIROLO 218.660,61€ 6,10%LUNIGIANA ALIM. 129.550,10€ 3,61%CERRETO 109.223,17€ 3,05%GERMOGLI DELLA CINA 82.786,44€ 2,31%B.M. 79.670,48€ 2,22%FORMA&NATURA 16.055,20€ 0,45%SAPORI DEL BORGO 15.771,33€ 0,44%GO TAN 14.647,82€ 0,41%FIORENTINI 12.642,80€ 0,35%BIRKO 11.688,00€ 0,33%TA TUNG 11.556,81€ 0,32%BONTA' & SALUTE 2.162,72€ 0,06%IL FIOR DI LOTO 1.648,91€ 0,05%BORGHINI 1.155,29€ 0,03%DROGHERIA&ALIMENTARI 254,65€ 0,01%LA NUOVA GASTRONOMIA 12,58€ 0,00%NUOVA ORSA MAGGIORE -€ 0,00%TOTAL 3.586.706,45€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 4,55%



!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

- " -v









!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- " -vi

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013NATURA NUOVA 690.989,53€ 34,10%SOJASUN 514.450,64€ 25,38%C.I.A.B. 412.309,97€ 20,34%SOYA0NAT 370.375,18€ 18,28%VALSOIA 38.479,97€ 1,90%ALPRO SOYA -€ 0,00%JOYA -€ 0,00%TOTAL 2.026.605,29€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 20,00%

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014NATURA NUOVA 874.269,40€ 35,77%SOJASUN 851.433,23€ 34,84%C.I.A.B. 418.770,84€ 17,13%SOYA0NAT 216.175,93€ 8,85%VALSOIA 55.517,94€ 2,27%ALPRO SOYA 27.436,30€ 1,12%JOYA 417,77€ 0,02%TOTAL 2.444.021,41€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 14,29%

Formaggi Base Soia

Formaggi Base Soia

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013C.I.A.B. 7.424.906,20€ 42,85%SOJASUN 6.148.465,41€ 35,49%NATURA NUOVA 2.852.552,60€ 16,46%ALMAVERDE 664.210,27€ 3,83%SOYA LIFE 193.835,82€ 1,12%VIVERA 41.138,64€ 0,24%NUOVA ORSA MAGGIORE 1.355,85€ 0,01%CEREAL -€ 0,00%IO VEG -€ 0,00%MUSCOLO DI GRANO -€ 0,00%PL CORE -€ 0,00%PL GREEN -€ 0,00%STUFFER -€ 0,00%TOTAL 17.326.464,79€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 14,29%

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014C.I.A.B. 9.111.156,32€ 38,91%SOJASUN 7.326.008,31€ 31,29%NATURA NUOVA 3.038.130,26€ 12,97%SOYA LIFE 1.332.538,80€ 5,69%ALMAVERDE 1.062.269,32€ 4,54%PL GREEN 816.054,02€ 3,49%IO VEG 669.182,25€ 2,86%VIVERA 34.902,24€ 0,15%CEREAL 11.867,87€ 0,05%PL CORE 6.519,89€ 0,03%STUFFER 5.988,77€ 0,03%MUSCOLO DI GRANO 1.403,12€ 0,01%NUOVA ORSA MAGGIORE -€ 0,00%TOTAL 23.416.021,17€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 8,33%

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti 0 Altri Tipi

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti 0 Altri Tipi

!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

- " -vii

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013C.I.A.B. 157.577,63€ 100,00%STUFFER -€ 0,00%TOTAL 157.577,63€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 100,00%

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014C.I.A.B. 200.538,26€ 92,43%STUFFER 16.419,45€ 7,57%TOTAL 216.957,71€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 50,00%

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti 0 Secondi

Fresco Altri Piatti Pronti 0 Secondi

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013VALSOIA 670.083,58€ 99,69%VITASANA 2.107,64€ 0,31%TOTAL 672.191,22€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 50,00%

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014VALSOIA 905.153,82€ 100,00%VITASANA -€ 0,00%TOTAL 905.153,82€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 100,00%



Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013YOSOI 15.712.570,25€ 57,09%SOJASUN 9.985.421,84€ 36,28%SOYA LIFE 706.809,89€ 2,57%PL CORE 485.782,10€ 1,76%STUFFER 350.175,18€ 1,27%ALPRO SOJA 268.141,09€ 0,97%VITASOYA 14.710,27€ 0,05%JOYA 90,10€ 0,00%PROVAMEL -€ 0,00%SOYA NAT -€ 0,00%TOTAL 27.523.700,72€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 12,50%

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014YOSOI 18.198.855,75€ 52,95%SOJASUN 11.657.767,66€ 33,92%PL CORE 2.018.884,03€ 5,87%ALPRO SOJA 1.129.075,02€ 3,29%SOYA LIFE 768.247,61€ 2,24%STUFFER 475.830,75€ 1,38%

SOYA NAT 93.745,77€ 0,27%

JOYA 24.761,46€ 0,07%

PROVAMEL 569,11€ 0,00%

VITASOYA 254,84€ 0,00%TOTAL 34.367.992,00€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 10,00%

Soia

Soia

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

- " -viii

Brand Market Value 2013 Market Share 2013VIVA LAMAMMA BERETTA 1.193.148,54€ 35,17%C.I.A.B. 444.340,19€ 13,10%PL CORE 408.379,11€ 12,04%FORNO ROMAGNOLO 339.362,62€ 10,00%PIERRE MARTINET 236.361,56€ 6,97%LA SORGENTE 148.650,24€ 4,38%ORMA 137.619,11€ 4,06%B.M. 118.873,02€ 3,50%YAMA 69.908,57€ 2,06%LE DELIZIE EMILIANE 57.254,54€ 1,69%RICETTE D'AUTORE 48.805,01€ 1,44%F.LLI ROSSI 39.143,75€ 1,15%CONBIO 37.003,85€ 1,09%NUOVA ORSA MAGGIORE 36.262,87€ 1,07%KING 28.836,69€ 0,85%DEMETRA 20.775,75€ 0,61%PL PREMIUM 11.641,36€ 0,34%ILCEPPO 6.895,90€ 0,20%GASTR.UMBRA 5.656,34€ 0,17%CUOCHI&CHEF 3.495,73€ 0,10%ALPE -€ 0,00%ANTICO BORGO UMBRO -€ 0,00%BANCO DEL GUSTO -€ 0,00%BOTTEGA IN CHIANTI -€ 0,00%CASA DEI CAPPELLETTI -€ 0,00%CHEF MENU' -€ 0,00%CORRADI UMBRIA & SAPORI -€ 0,00%FILENI -€ 0,00%FRES.CO -€ 0,00%LO CHEF A CASA -€ 0,00%OPSON -€ 0,00%ROSSI -€ 0,00%SACLA' -€ 0,00%TOSCANA MIA -€ 0,00%VOGLIAZZI -€ 0,00%TOTAL 3.392.414,75€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 5,00%

Primi Piatti Pronti O Insalata Pasta

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

- " -ix

Brand Market Value 2014 Market Share 2014VIVA LAMAMMA BERETTA 979.547,00€ 26,25%PL CORE 539.429,35€ 14,46%B.M. 326.277,59€ 8,74%C.I.A.B. 324.819,80€ 8,70%LA SORGENTE 213.077,66€ 5,71%FORNO ROMAGNOLO 200.769,65€ 5,38%CUOCHI&CHEF 144.049,33€ 3,86%SACLA' 138.456,62€ 3,71%ORMA 137.147,14€ 3,68%PIERRE MARTINET 130.441,18€ 3,50%ANTICO BORGO UMBRO 110.632,48€ 2,96%CONBIO 105.727,81€ 2,83%F.LLI ROSSI 62.950,92€ 1,69%VOGLIAZZI 54.947,87€ 1,47%FILENI 51.123,86€ 1,37%FRES.CO 43.749,24€ 1,17%ALPE 28.522,67€ 0,76%DEMETRA 26.621,62€ 0,71%LE DELIZIE EMILIANE 24.788,36€ 0,66%CASA DEI CAPPELLETTI 16.453,03€ 0,44%KING 15.441,17€ 0,41%CORRADI UMBRIA & SAPORI 12.633,28€ 0,34%PL PREMIUM 12.381,85€ 0,33%LO CHEF A CASA 10.835,16€ 0,29%CHEF MENU' 8.540,03€ 0,23%ROSSI 3.241,47€ 0,09%ILCEPPO 2.510,37€ 0,07%GASTR.UMBRA 1.962,24€ 0,05%YAMA 1.731,64€ 0,05%BANCO DEL GUSTO 1.466,70€ 0,04%BOTTEGA IN CHIANTI 620,58€ 0,02%RICETTE D'AUTORE 344,26€ 0,01%TOSCANA MIA 331,09€ 0,01%OPSON 4,79€ 0,00%NUOVA ORSA MAGGIORE -€ 0,00%TOTAL 3.731.577,81€ 100,00%AVERAGE MARKET SHARE 2,94%

Primi Piatti Pronti O Insalata Pasta

Market Volume Var iat ion Analys is

- " -x

Sou

rce:

The

Nie

lsen

Com

pany

(re-

elab

orat

ed)

Abs

olut

e Va

lue

Per

cent

age

Valu

eVo

lum

eP

erce

ntag

e Va

lue

Volu

me

Per

cent

age

Valu

eΔv

olum

eΔ%

Volu

me

Tota

l1.

258

10

0,00

%52

.050

.760

,95

100,

00%

61.4

42.4

15,9

6

10

0,00

%9.

391.

655,

01

+ 18

,04%

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

452

35,9

3%43

.022

.964

,11

82,6

6%51

.598

.017

,38

83,9

8%8.

575.

053,

27

+ 19

,93%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

806

64,0

7%9.

027.

796,

84

17,3

4%9.

844.

398,

58

16,0

2%81

6.60

1,74

+ 9,

05%

Tota

l

ITA

LIA

N M

AR

KET

VO

LUM

E VA

RIA

TIO

N A

NA

LYS

IS20

1320

1420

13-2

014

Tota

l59

610

0,00

%8.

085.

938,

10

100,

00%

8.87

6.16

6,94

10

0,00

%79

0.22

8,84

+ 9,

77%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Seco

ndi

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

40,

67%

10.7

82,3

6

0,

13%

14.1

41,6

7

0,

16%

3.35

9,31

+

31,1

6%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

592

99,3

3%8.

075.

155,

74

99,8

7%8.

862.

025,

27

99,8

4%78

6.86

9,53

+ 9,

74%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Seco

ndi

Tota

l14

110

0,00

%36

.227

.761

,80

100,

00%

42.8

07.9

42,8

9

10

0,00

%6.

580.

181,

09

+ 18

,16%

Altre

Bev

. Piat

te (N

o

Gas

) Lat

te d

i Soi

a

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

141

100,

00%

36.2

27.7

61,8

0

10

0,00

%42

.807

.942

,89

100,

00%

6.58

0.18

1,09

+

18,1

6%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%Al

tre B

ev. P

iatte

(No

Gas

) Lat

te d

i Soi

a

Tota

l25

610

0,00

%2.

188.

234,

39

100,

00%

2.69

8.17

2,14

10

0,00

%50

9.93

7,75

+ 23

,30%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Altri

Tip

i

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

6224

,22%

1.26

6.65

0,26

57

,88%

1.73

9.89

2,98

64

,48%

473.

242,

72

+

37,3

6%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

194

75,7

8%92

1.58

4,13

42,1

2%95

8.27

9,16

35,5

2%36

.695

,03

+ 3,

98%

Fres

co A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0

Altri

Tip

i

Tota

l75

100,

00%

4.55

4.86

9,61

10

0,00

%5.

834.

658,

50

100,

00%

1.27

9.78

8,89

+

28,1

0%

Soia

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

7510

0,00

%4.

554.

869,

61

100,

00%

5.83

4.65

8,50

10

0,00

%1.

279.

788,

89

+ 28

,10%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%

Soia

Tota

l10

610

0,00

%35

7.51

0,76

100,

00%

382.

727,

44

10

0,00

%25

.216

,68

+ 7,

05%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pr

onti

O

Insa

lata

Past

aP

lant

Pro

duct

s95

89,6

2%32

6.45

3,79

91,3

1%35

8.63

3,29

93,7

0%32

.179

,50

+ 9,

86%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

1110

,38%

31.0

56,9

7

8,

69%

24.0

94,1

5

6,

30%

6.96

2,82

-

- 2

2,42

%Pr

imi P

iatti

Pron

ti O

Insa

lata

Past

a

Tota

l56

100,

00%

189.

179,

62

10

0,00

%25

2.28

5,40

100,

00%

63.1

05,7

8

+

33,3

6%

Altri

Piat

ti Pr

onti

Altri

Base

Altr

oP

lant

Pro

duct

s56

100,

00%

189.

179,

62

10

0,00

%25

2.28

5,40

100,

00%

63.1

05,7

8

+

33,3

6%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%Al

tri P

iatti

Pron

ti Al

tri

Base

Altr

o

Tota

l17

100,

00%

208.

460,

61

10

0,00

%25

7.25

0,02

100,

00%

48.7

89,4

1

+

23,4

0%

Form

aggi

Bas

e So

ia

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

1710

0,00

%20

8.46

0,61

100,

00%

257.

250,

02

10

0,00

%48

.789

,41

+ 23

,40%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%Fo

rmag

gi B

ase

Soia

Tota

l2

100,

00%

238.

806,

06

10

0,00

%33

3.21

2,63

100,

00%

94.4

06,5

7

+

39,5

3%

Latte

di S

oia

Fres

co

Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

210

0,00

%23

8.80

6,06

100,

00%

333.

212,

63

10

0,00

%94

.406

,57

+ 39

,53%

Non

-Pla

nt P

rodu

cts

00,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

0,

00%

-

+

0,00

%La

tte d

i Soi

a Fr

esco

Packages Purchased Volume Var iat ion Analys is

- " -xi

Sour

ce: T

he N

ielse

n Co

mpa

ny (r

e-ela

bora

ted)

Abso

lute

Value

Perc

enta

ge V

alue

N. o

f Pac

kage

sPe

rcen

tage

Valu

eN.

of P

acka

ges

Perc

enta

ge V

alue

ΔN. O

f Pac

kage

sΔ%

N. o

f Pac

kage

s

Tota

l1.

258

10

0,00

%11

4.79

9.10

7,49

10

0,00

%13

4.82

5.40

3,26

10

0,00

%20

.026

.295

,77

+ 17

,44%

Plan

t Pro

duct

s45

2

35

,93%

67.4

25.6

44,9

7

58

,73%

83.0

06.3

13,1

8

61

,57%

15.5

80.6

68,2

1

+

23,1

1%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s80

6

64

,07%

47.3

73.4

62,5

2

41

,27%

51.8

19.0

90,0

8

38

,43%

4.44

5.62

7,56

+

9,38

%To

tal

PACK

AGE

PURC

HASE

S VA

RIAT

ION

ANAL

YSIS

2013

2014

2013

-201

4

Tota

l59

610

0,00

%44

.726

.056

,17

100,

00%

49.2

51.7

73,7

6

10

0,00

%4.

525.

717,

59

+ 10

,12%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

diPl

ant P

rodu

cts

40,

67%

44.7

70,0

3

0,

10%

60.1

85,1

6

0,

12%

15.4

15,1

3

+

34,4

3%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s59

299

,33%

44.6

81.2

86,1

4

99

,90%

49.1

91.5

88,6

0

99

,88%

4.51

0.30

2,46

+

10,0

9%Fre

sco A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

di

Tota

l14

110

0,00

%41

.629

.251

,94

100,

00%

48.7

44.9

58,9

5

10

0,00

%7.

115.

707,

01

+ 17

,09%

Altre

Bev.

Piatte

(No

Gas)

Latte

di S

oiaPl

ant P

rodu

cts

141

100,

00%

41.6

29.2

51,9

4

10

0,00

%48

.744

.958

,95

100,

00%

7.11

5.70

7,01

+

17,0

9%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s0

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

+ 0,

00%

Altre

Bev.

Piatte

(No

Gas)

Latte

di S

oia

Tota

l25

610

0,00

%8.

185.

240,

05

100,

00%

10.4

98.5

76,9

4

10

0,00

%2.

313.

336,

89

+ 28

,26%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipiPl

ant P

rodu

cts

6224

,22%

5.60

7.26

8,81

68

,50%

7.96

8.28

6,82

75

,90%

2.36

1.01

8,01

+

42,1

1%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s19

475

,78%

2.57

7.97

1,24

31

,50%

2.53

0.29

0,12

24

,10%

47.6

81,1

2-

- 1,

85%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipi

Tota

l75

100,

00%

17.2

80.8

17,4

7

10

0,00

%22

.589

.532

,48

100,

00%

5.30

8.71

5,01

+

30,7

2%

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s75

100,

00%

17.2

80.8

17,4

7

10

0,00

%22

.589

.532

,48

100,

00%

5.30

8.71

5,01

+

30,7

2%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s0

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

+ 0,

00%

Soia

Tota

l10

610

0,00

%1.

211.

752,

65

100,

00%

1.38

7.59

0,48

10

0,00

%17

5.83

7,83

+ 14

,51%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pro

nti O

Insala

ta Pa

staPl

ant P

rodu

cts

9589

,62%

1.09

7.54

7,51

90

,58%

1.29

0.37

9,12

92

,99%

192.

831,

61

+

17,5

7%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s11

10,3

8%11

4.20

5,14

9,42

%97

.211

,36

7,01

%16

.993

,78

-

-

14,8

8%Pr

imi P

iatti P

ronti

O

Insala

ta Pa

sta

Tota

l56

100,

00%

810.

077,

70

10

0,00

%1.

147.

685,

08

100,

00%

337.

607,

38

+

41,6

8%

Altri P

iatti P

ronti

Altri

Base

Altro

Plan

t Pro

duct

s56

100,

00%

810.

077,

70

10

0,00

%1.

147.

685,

08

100,

00%

337.

607,

38

+

41,6

8%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s0

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

+ 0,

00%

Altri P

iatti P

ronti

Altri

Base

Altro

Tota

l17

100,

00%

716.

420,

73

10

0,00

%87

2.07

2,94

100,

00%

155.

652,

21

+

21,7

3%

Form

aggi

Base

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s17

100,

00%

716.

420,

73

10

0,00

%87

2.07

2,94

100,

00%

155.

652,

21

+

21,7

3%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s0

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

+ 0,

00%

Form

aggi

Base

Soia

Tota

l2

100,

00%

239.

490,

78

10

0,00

%33

3.21

2,63

100,

00%

93.7

21,8

5

+

39,1

3%

Latte

di S

oia Fr

esco

Plan

t Pro

duct

s2

100,

00%

239.

490,

78

10

0,00

%33

3.21

2,63

100,

00%

93.7

21,8

5

+

39,1

3%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s0

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

0,00

%-

+ 0,

00%

Latte

di S

oia Fr

esco

Pr ice Var iat ion Analys is

!!!!!!!!

- " -xii

Source: The Nielsen Company (re-elaborated) 2013 2014 2013-2014

Absolute Value Percentage Value W. Avg. Price W. Avg. Price Δ%WAvg Price

Total 1.258 100,00% 2,90 2,79 - 3,93%

Plant Products 452 35,93% 3,10 3,02 - 2,41%

Non-Plant Products 806 64,07% 3,67 3,60 - 1,98%Total

PRICE VARIATION ANALYSIS

Total 596 100,00% 3,46 3,30 - 4,61%

Fresco Altri Piatti

Pronti 0 Secondi

Plant Products 4 0,67% 3,53 3,61 + 2,50%

Non-Plant Products 592 99,33% 3,46 3,30 - 4,62%Fresco Altri Piatti

Pronti 0 Secondi

Total 141 100,00% 1,94 1,92 - 0,97%

Altre Bev. P

iatte (No

Gas) Latte di Soia

Plant Products 141 100,00% 1,94 1,92 - 0,97%

Non-Plant Products 0 0,00% - - + 0,00%Altre Bev. P

iatte (No

Gas) Latte di Soia

Total 256 100,00% 4,24 4,27 + 0,69%

Fresco Altri Piatti

Pronti 0 Altri

Tipi

Plant Products 62 24,22% 3,14 3,01 - 3,87%

Non-Plant Products 194 75,78% 5,98 6,89 + 15,14%Fresco Altri Piatti

Pronti 0 Altri

Tipi

Total 75 100,00% 1,64 1,56 - 5,00%

Soia Plant Products 75 100,00% 1,64 1,56 - 5,00%

Non-Plant Products 0 0,00% - - + 0,00%

Soia

Total 106 100,00% 3,31 3,25 - 1,91%

Primi Piatti P

ronti O

Insalata PastaPlant Products 95 89,62% 3,35 3,24 - 3,27%

Non-Plant Products 11 10,38% 2,91 3,38 + 16,16%Primi Piatti P

ronti O

Insalata Pasta

Total 56 100,00% 3,30 3,22 - 2,33%

Altri Piatti P

ronti Altri

Base Altro Plant Products 56 100,00% 3,30 3,22 - 2,33%

Non-Plant Products 0 0,00% - - + 0,00%Altri Piatti P

ronti Altri

Base Altro

Total 17 100,00% 2,85 2,83 - 0,77%

Formaggi Base Soia

Plant Products 17 100,00% 2,85 2,83 - 0,77%

Non-Plant Products 0 0,00% - - + 0,00%Formaggi Base Soia

Total 2 100,00% 2,81 2,72 - 3,33%


Plant Products 2 100,00% 2,81 2,72 - 3,33%

Non-Plant Products 0 0,00% - - + 0,00%Latte di Soia Fresco

Distr ibut ion Channel Var iat ion Analys is

- " -xiii

Sour

ce: T

he N

ielse

n Co

mpa

ny (r

e-ela

bora

ted)

Tota

l Valu

e%

Tota

l Valu

eHy

perm

arke

t%

Hyp

erm

arke

tSu

perm

arke

t%

Sup

erm

arke

t Su

pere

tte%

Sup

eret

teDi

scou

nt%

Disc

ount

Trad

itiona

l Gro

cery

% T

rad.

Gro

cery

Tota

l25

7.95

8.31

4,38

10

0,00

%94

.401

.104

,77

36,6

0%10

0.92

2.90

6,50

39

,12%

28.8

38.5

69,4

2

11

,18%

24.7

49.9

18,2

1

9,

59%

9.04

5.81

5,48

3,

51%

Plan

t Pro

duct

s12

7.71

5.32

9,73

10

0,00

%47

.156

.449

,02

36,9

2%51

.491

.281

,36

40,3

2%13

.508

.848

,02

10,5

8%11

.628

.303

,92

9,10

%3.

930.

447,

41

3,08

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s13

0.24

2.98

4,65

10

0,00

%47

.244

.655

,75

36,2

7%49

.431

.625

,14

37,9

5%15

.329

.721

,40

11,7

7%13

.121

.614

,29

10,0

7%5.

115.

368,

07

3,93

%

ITALI

AN D

ISTR

IBUT

ION

CHAN

NEL

ANAL

YSIS

(201

3)

Total

Tota

l11

9.09

6.54

3,98

10

0,00

%42

.958

.322

,05

36,0

7%45

.093

.902

,54

37,8

6%14

.227

.531

,13

11,9

5%12

.029

.609

,64

10,1

0%4.

787.

178,

62

4,02

%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

diPl

ant P

rodu

cts

99.9

49,2

7

10

0,00

%48

.514

,82

48,5

4%50

.956

,95

50,9

8%47

7,50

0,48

%-

0,

00%

-

0,00

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s11

8.99

6.59

4,71

10

0,00

%42

.909

.807

,23

36,0

6%45

.042

.945

,59

37,8

5%14

.227

.053

,63

11,9

6%12

.029

.609

,64

10,1

1%4.

787.

178,

62

4,02

%Fre

sco A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

di

Tota

l74

.137

.384

,21

100,

00%

21.8

24.5

08,8

6

29

,44%

31.0

15.8

23,9

6

41

,84%

8.89

7.63

7,06

12

,00%

9.44

6.46

8,70

12

,74%

2.95

2.94

5,63

3,

98%

Altre

Bev.

Piatte

(No

Gas)

Latte

di S

oiaPl

ant P

rodu

cts

74.1

37.3

84,2

1

10

0,00

%21

.824

.508

,86

29,4

4%31

.015

.823

,96

41,8

4%8.

897.

637,

06

12,0

0%9.

446.

468,

70

12,7

4%2.

952.

945,

63

3,98

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Alt

re Be

v. Pia

tte (N

o

Gas)

Latte

di S

oia

Tota

l28

.266

.312

,59

100,

00%

14.3

93.8

52,9

0

50

,92%

10.1

82.3

04,3

0

36

,02%

2.03

0.77

3,01

7,

18%

1.32

4.10

0,25

4,

68%

335.

282,

13

1,

19%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipiPl

ant P

rodu

cts

17.3

26.4

64,7

8

10

0,00

%10

.187

.991

,00

58,8

0%5.

919.

289,

92

34,1

6%97

9.15

5,31

5,65

%23

2.93

5,87

1,34

%7.

092,

68

0,04

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s10

.939

.847

,81

100,

00%

4.20

5.86

1,90

38

,45%

4.26

3.01

4,38

38

,97%

1.05

1.61

7,70

9,

61%

1.09

1.16

4,38

9,

97%

328.

189,

45

3,

00%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipi

Tota

l27

.523

.973

,76

100,

00%

11.3

73.9

40,7

0

41

,32%

11.3

32.4

51,4

0

41

,17%

2.51

9.84

8,11

9,

16%

1.47

7.91

1,18

5,

37%

819.

822,

37

2,

98%

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s27

.523

.973

,76

100,

00%

11.3

73.9

40,7

0

41

,32%

11.3

32.4

51,4

0

41

,17%

2.51

9.84

8,11

9,

16%

1.47

7.91

1,18

5,

37%

819.

822,

37

2,

98%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-So

ia

Tota

l3.

698.

961,

30

100,

00%

1.01

2.87

2,17

27

,38%

1.49

4.74

2,06

40

,41%

845.

703,

68

22

,86%

275.

595,

65

7,

45%

70.0

47,7

4

1,

89%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pro

nti O

Insala

ta Pa

staPl

ant P

rodu

cts

3.39

2.41

9,17

0,

00%

883.

885,

55

0,

00%

1.36

9.07

6,89

0,

00%

794.

653,

61

0,

00%

274.

755,

38

0,

00%

70.0

47,7

4

0,

00%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s30

6.54

2,13

100,

00%

128.

986,

62

42

,08%

125.

665,

17

40

,99%

51.0

50,0

7

16

,65%

840,

27

0,

27%

-

0,00

%Pr

imi P

iatti P

ronti

O

Insala

ta Pa

sta

Tota

l2.

536.

135,

80

100,

00%

1.27

8.89

4,95

50

,43%

946.

223,

67

37

,31%

229.

863,

36

9,

06%

2.93

4,88

0,

12%

78.2

18,9

4

3,

08%

Altri P

iatti P

ronti

Altri

Base

Altro

Plan

t Pro

duct

s2.

536.

135,

80

100,

00%

1.27

8.89

4,95

50

,43%

946.

223,

67

37

,31%

229.

863,

36

9,

06%

2.93

4,88

0,

12%

78.2

18,9

4

3,

08%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Alt

ri Piat

ti Pro

nti A

ltri

Base

Altro

Tota

l2.

026.

620,

01

100,

00%

1.14

2.52

5,69

56

,38%

637.

842,

18

31

,47%

51.7

62,9

0

2,

55%

192.

169,

19

9,

48%

2.32

0,05

0,

11%

Form

aggi

Base

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s2.

026.

620,

01

100,

00%

1.14

2.52

5,69

56

,38%

637.

842,

18

31

,47%

51.7

62,9

0

2,

55%

192.

169,

19

9,

48%

2.32

0,05

0,

11%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Fo

rmag

gi Ba

se S

oia

Tota

l67

2.38

2,73

100,

00%

416.

187,

45

61

,90%

219.

616,

39

32

,66%

35.4

50,1

7

5,

27%

1.12

8,72

0,

17%

-

0,00

%

Latte

di S

oia Fr

esco

Plan

t Pro

duct

s67

2.38

2,73

100,

00%

416.

187,

45

61

,90%

219.

616,

39

32

,66%

35.4

50,1

7

5,

27%

1.12

8,72

0,

17%

-

0,00

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-La

tte d

i Soia

Fres

co

- " -xiv

Sour

ce: T

he N

ielse

n Co

mpa

ny (r

e-ela

bora

ted)

Tota

l Valu

e%

Tota

l Valu

eHy

perm

arke

t%

Hyp

erm

arke

tSu

perm

arke

t%

Sup

erm

arke

t Su

pere

tte%

Sup

eret

teDi

scou

nt%

Disc

ount

Trad

itiona

l Gro

cery

% T

rad.

Gro

cery

Tota

l29

0.35

7.08

6,01

10

0,00

%10

5.22

3.63

2,20

36

,24%

116.

893.

151,

94

40,2

6%29

.325

.664

,63

10,1

0%31

.011

.485

,82

10,6

8%7.

903.

151,

42

2,72

%

Plan

t Pro

duct

s15

5.39

3.20

4,31

10

0,00

%56

.569

.880

,44

36,4

0%64

.566

.292

,91

41,5

5%15

.351

.726

,92

9,88

%14

.948

.288

,54

9,62

%3.

957.

015,

50

2,55

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s13

4.96

3.88

1,70

10

0,00

%48

.653

.751

,76

36,0

5%52

.326

.859

,03

38,7

7%13

.973

.937

,71

10,3

5%16

.063

.197

,28

11,9

0%3.

946.

135,

92

2,92

%

ITALI

AN D

ISTR

IBUT

ION

CHAN

NEL

ANAL

YSIS

(201

4)

Total

Tota

l12

3.63

8.20

1,74

10

0,00

%44

.431

.133

,12

35,9

4%47

.663

.318

,55

38,5

5%13

.080

.336

,78

10,5

8%14

.754

.728

,67

11,9

3%3.

708.

684,

62

3,00

%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

diPl

ant P

rodu

cts

142.

231,

99

10

0,00

%63

.556

,25

44,6

8%68

.204

,70

47,9

5%10

.247

,69

7,20

%-

0,

00%

223,

35

0,

16%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s12

3.49

5.96

9,75

10

0,00

%44

.367

.576

,87

35,9

3%47

.595

.113

,85

38,5

4%13

.070

.089

,09

10,5

8%14

.754

.728

,67

11,9

5%3.

708.

461,

27

3,00

%Fre

sco A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

di

Tota

l86

.800

.517

,64

100,

00%

25.6

64.4

61,3

4

29

,57%

37.0

78.9

05,7

9

42

,72%

9.95

2.81

3,05

11

,47%

10.9

63.7

16,2

0

12

,63%

3.14

0.62

1,26

3,

62%

Altre

Bev.

Piatte

(No

Gas)

Latte

di S

oiaPl

ant P

rodu

cts

86.8

00.5

17,6

4

10

0,00

%25

.664

.461

,34

29,5

7%37

.078

.905

,79

42,7

2%9.

952.

813,

05

11,4

7%10

.963

.716

,20

12,6

3%3.

140.

621,

26

3,62

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Alt

re Be

v. Pia

tte (N

o

Gas)

Latte

di S

oia

Tota

l34

.603

.654

,56

100,

00%

16.5

62.3

71,6

2

47

,86%

12.9

92.1

71,0

7

37

,55%

2.05

7.96

3,95

5,

95%

2.66

9.73

1,41

7,

72%

321.

416,

51

0,

93%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipiPl

ant P

rodu

cts

23.4

16.0

62,9

4

10

0,00

%12

.362

.315

,97

52,7

9%8.

387.

137,

19

35,8

2%1.

221.

087,

53

5,21

%1.

361.

338,

32

5,81

%84

.183

,93

0,36

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s11

.187

.591

,62

100,

00%

4.20

0.05

5,65

37

,54%

4.60

5.03

3,88

41

,16%

836.

876,

42

7,

48%

1.30

8.39

3,09

11

,70%

237.

232,

58

2,

12%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipi

Tota

l34

.366

.902

,79

100,

00%

13.8

59.5

35,2

8

40

,33%

14.9

21.1

10,0

1

43

,42%

3.08

7.59

9,08

8,

98%

1.92

1.70

0,01

5,

59%

576.

958,

41

1,

68%

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s34

.366

.902

,79

100,

00%

13.8

59.5

35,2

8

40

,33%

14.9

21.1

10,0

1

43

,42%

3.08

7.59

9,08

8,

98%

1.92

1.70

0,01

5,

59%

576.

958,

41

1,

68%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-So

ia

Tota

l4.

011.

918,

40

100,

00%

1.00

8.07

3,60

25

,13%

1.55

2.01

7,35

38

,69%

759.

628,

05

18

,93%

549.

468,

51

13

,70%

142.

730,

89

3,

56%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pro

nti O

Insala

ta Pa

staPl

ant P

rodu

cts

3.73

1.59

8,07

0,

00%

921.

954,

36

0,

00%

1.42

5.30

6,05

0,

00%

692.

655,

85

0,

00%

549.

392,

99

0,

00%

142.

288,

82

0,

00%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s28

0.32

0,33

100,

00%

86.1

19,2

4

30

,72%

126.

711,

30

45

,20%

66.9

72,2

0

23

,89%

75,5

2

0,

03%

442,

07

0,

16%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pro

nti O

Insala

ta Pa

sta

Tota

l3.

586.

706,

39

100,

00%

1.84

7.58

6,28

51

,51%

1.45

4.87

7,71

40

,56%

264.

177,

75

7,

37%

9.38

6,02

0,

26%

10.6

78,6

3

0,

30%

Altri P

iatti P

ronti

Altri

Base

Altro

Plan

t Pro

duct

s3.

586.

706,

39

100,

00%

1.84

7.58

6,28

51

,51%

1.45

4.87

7,71

40

,56%

264.

177,

75

7,

37%

9.38

6,02

0,

26%

10.6

78,6

3

0,

30%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Alt

ri Piat

ti Pro

nti A

ltri

Base

Altro

Tota

l2.

444.

027,

61

100,

00%

1.39

1.28

7,54

56

,93%

824.

300,

29

33

,73%

89.9

84,9

2

3,

68%

136.

393,

76

5,

58%

2.06

1,10

0,

08%

Form

aggi

Base

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s2.

434.

055,

50

100,

00%

1.38

9.54

9,21

57

,09%

820.

035,

64

33

,69%

86.1

00,4

4

3,

54%

136.

309,

11

5,

60%

2.06

1,10

0,

08%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Fo

rmag

gi Ba

se S

oia

Tota

l90

5.15

6,88

100,

00%

459.

183,

42

50

,73%

406.

451,

17

44

,90%

33.1

61,0

5

3,

66%

6.36

1,24

0,

70%

-

0,00

%

Latte

di S

oia Fr

esco

Plan

t Pro

duct

s90

5.15

6,88

100,

00%

459.

183,

42

50

,73%

406.

451,

17

44

,90%

33.1

61,0

5

3,

66%

6.36

1,24

0,

70%

-

0,00

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-La

tte d

i Soia

Fres

co

- " -xv

Sour

ce: T

he N

ielse

n Co

mpa

ny (r

e-ela

bora

ted)

Δ Ab

solut

e Va

lueΔ%

Δ Ab

solut

e Va

lueΔ%

Δ Ab

solut

e Va

lueΔ%

Δ Ab

solut

e Va

lueΔ%

Δ Ab

solut

e Va

lueΔ%

Δ Ab

solut

e Va

lueΔ%

Tota

l Valu

eHy

perm

arke

tSu

perm

arke

t

ITALI

AN D

ISTR

IBUT

ION

CHAN

NEL

VARI

ATIO

N AN

ALYS

IS (2

013

- 201

4)Δ

2013

- 20

14

Total

e

Disc

ount

Trad

itiona

l Gro

cery

Supe

rette

Tota

l32

.398

.771

,63

12,5

6%10

.822

.527

,43

+ 11

,46%

15.9

70.2

45,4

4

+

15,8

2%48

7.09

5,21

+ 1,

69%

6.26

1.56

7,61

+

25,3

0%1.

142.

664,

06-

- 12

,63%

Plan

t Pro

duct

s27

.677

.874

,58

21,6

7%9.

413.

431,

42

+ 19

,96%

13.0

75.0

11,5

5

+

25,3

9%1.

842.

878,

90

+ 13

,64%

3.31

9.98

4,62

+

28,5

5%26

.568

,09

+

0,68

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s4.

720.

897,

05

3,62

%1.

409.

096,

01

+ 2,

98%

2.89

5.23

3,89

+

5,86

%1.

355.

783,

69-

- 8,

84%

2.94

1.58

2,99

+

22,4

2%1.

169.

232,

15-

- 22

,86%

Total

e

Tota

l4.

541.

657,

76

3,81

%1.

472.

811,

07

+ 3,

43%

2.56

9.41

6,01

+

5,70

%1.

147.

194,

35-

- 8,

06%

2.72

5.11

9,03

+

22,6

5%1.

078.

494,

00-

- 22

,53%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

diPl

ant P

rodu

cts

42.2

82,7

2

42,3

0%15

.041

,43

+

31,0

0%17

.247

,75

+

33,8

5%9.

770,

19

+ 2.

046,

11%

-

+

0,00

%22

3,35

+ 0,

00%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s4.

499.

375,

04

3,78

%1.

457.

769,

64

+ 3,

40%

2.55

2.16

8,26

+

5,67

%1.

156.

964,

54-

- 8,

13%

2.72

5.11

9,03

+

22,6

5%1.

078.

717,

35-

- 10

0,00

%Fre

sco A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0 S

econ

di

Tota

l12

.663

.133

,43

17,0

8%3.

839.

952,

48

+ 17

,59%

6.06

3.08

1,83

+

19,5

5%1.

055.

175,

99

+ 11

,86%

1.51

7.24

7,50

+

16,0

6%18

7.67

5,63

+ 6,

36%

Altre

Bev.

Piatte

(No

Gas)

Latte

di S

oiaPl

ant P

rodu

cts

12.6

63.1

33,4

3

17

,08%

3.83

9.95

2,48

+

17,5

9%6.

063.

081,

83

+ 19

,55%

1.05

5.17

5,99

+

11,8

6%1.

517.

247,

50

+ 16

,06%

187.

675,

63

+

6,36

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Alt

re Be

v. Pia

tte (N

o

Gas)

Latte

di S

oia

Tota

l6.

337.

341,

97

22,4

2%2.

168.

518,

72

+ 15

,07%

2.80

9.86

6,77

+

27,6

0%27

.190

,94

+

1,34

%1.

345.

631,

16

+ 10

1,63

%13

.865

,62

-

-

4,14

%

Fresc

o Altri

Piat

ti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipiPl

ant P

rodu

cts

6.08

9.59

8,16

35

,15%

2.17

4.32

4,97

+

21,3

4%2.

467.

847,

27

+ 41

,69%

241.

932,

22

+

24,7

1%1.

128.

402,

45

+ 48

4,43

%77

.091

,25

+

1.08

6,91

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s24

7.74

3,81

2,26

%5.

806,

25-

-

0,14

%34

2.01

9,50

+ 8,

02%

214.

741,

28-

-

20,4

2%21

7.22

8,71

+ 19

,91%

90.9

56,8

7-

+ 10

0,00

%Fre

sco A

ltri P

iatti

Pron

ti 0 A

ltri T

ipi

Tota

l6.

842.

929,

03

24,8

6%2.

485.

594,

58

+ 21

,85%

3.58

8.65

8,61

+

31,6

7%56

7.75

0,97

+ 22

,53%

443.

788,

83

+

30,0

3%24

2.86

3,96

-

- 29

,62%

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s6.

842.

929,

03

24,8

6%2.

485.

594,

58

+ 21

,85%

3.58

8.65

8,61

+

31,6

7%56

7.75

0,97

+ 22

,53%

443.

788,

83

+

30,0

3%24

2.86

3,96

-

- 29

,62%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-So

ia

Tota

l31

2.95

7,10

8,46

%4.

798,

57-

-

0,47

%57

.275

,29

+

3,83

%86

.075

,63

-

-

10,1

8%27

3.87

2,86

+ 99

,37%

72.6

83,1

5

+ 10

3,76

%

Prim

i Piat

ti Pro

nti O

Insala

ta Pa

staPl

ant P

rodu

cts

339.

178,

90

0,

00%

38.0

68,8

1

+ 0,

00%

56.2

29,1

6

+ 0,

00%

101.

997,

76-

+

0,00

%27

4.63

7,61

+ 0,

00%

72.2

41,0

8

+ 0,

00%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s26

.221

,80

-

-8

,55%

42.8

67,3

8-

- 33

,23%

1.04

6,13

+

0,83

%15

.922

,13

+

31,1

9%76

4,75

-

-

91,0

1%44

2,07

+ 10

0,00

%Pr

imi P

iatti P

ronti

O

Insala

ta Pa

sta

Tota

l1.

050.

570,

59

41,4

2%56

8.69

1,33

+ 44

,47%

508.

654,

04

+

53,7

6%34

.314

,39

+

14,9

3%6.

451,

14

+ 21

9,81

%67

.540

,31

-

-

86,3

5%

Altri P

iatti P

ronti

Altri

Base

Altro

Plan

t Pro

duct

s1.

050.

570,

59

41,4

2%56

8.69

1,33

+ 44

,47%

508.

654,

04

+

53,7

6%34

.314

,39

+

14,9

3%6.

451,

14

+ 21

9,81

%67

.540

,31

-

-

86,3

5%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Alt

ri Piat

ti Pro

nti A

ltri

Base

Altro

Tota

l41

7.40

7,60

20,6

0%24

8.76

1,85

+ 21

,77%

186.

458,

11

+

29,2

3%38

.222

,02

+

73,8

4%55

.775

,43

-

-

29,0

2%25

8,95

-

-

11,1

6%

Form

aggi

Base

Soia

Plan

t Pro

duct

s40

7.43

5,49

20,1

0%24

7.02

3,52

+ 21

,62%

182.

193,

46

+

28,5

6%34

.337

,54

+

66,3

4%55

.860

,08

-

-

29,0

7%25

8,95

-

-

11,1

6%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-Fo

rmag

gi Ba

se S

oia

Tota

l23

2.77

4,15

34,6

2%42

.995

,97

+

10,3

3%18

6.83

4,78

+ 85

,07%

2.28

9,12

-

- 6,

46%

5.23

2,52

+

463,

58%

-

+

0,00

%

Latte

di S

oia Fr

esco

Plan

t Pro

duct

s23

2.77

4,15

34,6

2%42

.995

,97

+

10,3

3%18

6.83

4,78

+ 85

,07%

2.28

9,12

-

- 6,

46%

5.23

2,52

+

463,

58%

-

+

0,00

%

Non-

Plan

t Pro

duct

s-

--

--

--

--

--

-La

tte d

i Soia

Fres

co

Bibl iographic References

Agrimoney.com. Cofco buys control of Nidera fueling deal spree. Agrimoney.com. 28th February 2014. http://www.agrimoney.com/news/cofco-buys-control-of-nidera-fuelling-deal-spree--6805.html

Alexandratos, Nikos and Bruinsma, Jelle. 2012. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision. ESA Working Paper No. 12-03. FAO, Roma. http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf

Akhisa, T. and Kokke, W. 1991. "Naturally occurring sterols and related compounds from plants". In Patterson, G. W.; Nes, W. D. Physiology and Biochemistry of Sterols, pp. 172-28. American Oil Chemists' Society, Champaign.

Arthur, Brian W. 1989. “Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-in by Historical Events”, The Economic Journal, Vol. 99, No. 394 (Mar. 1989), pp. 116–131. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2234208

Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition. 2012. Doppia Piramide 2012: favorire scelte a l imentar i consapevol i . Bar i l la Center for Food & Nutr i t ion, Parma. ht tp:/ /www.bar i l lacfn.com/posit ion-paper/buono-per-te-sostenibi le-per-pianeta-model lo-doppia-piramide/

Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition. 2012. L’alimentazione nel 2030: tendenze e prospettive. Barilla Center for Food & Nutrition, Parma. http://www.barillacfn.com/position-paper/alimentazione-nel-2030-tendenze-prospettive/

Brown, Lester R. 2012. Full Planet, Empty Plates: the new geopolitics of food scarcity. W. W. Norton & Company, New York.

Carlsson-Kanyama, A. and Lindèn, A.-L. 2001. “Trends in food production and consumption: Swedish experiences from environmental and cultural impacts”, International Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 4, No 4 (2001), pp. 392-406. DOI: 10.1504/IJSD.2001.001558

Centro Nuovo Modello di Sviluppo. 2011. Guida al consumo critico. Ponte alle Grazie, Firenze.

Chittenden, Russel. 1905. Digestive Proteolysis and Physiological Economy in Nutrition. F.A. Stokes, New York.

Campbell, Thomas L. and Colin T. Campbell. 2004. The China Study: the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted and the startling implications for diet, weight loss and long-term health. BenBella Books, Dallas.

Crespi, Mario and Aldo Gaudiano. 1970. “Dizionario bibliografico degli italiani”, Enciclopedia Treccani, Vol. 7 (1970). Treccani, Roma.

- " -xvi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2234208

!!David, Paul A. 1985. “Clio and the Economics of QWERTY”, The American Economic Review, Vol. 75, No. 2 (May 1985), Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Seventh, Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association, pp. 332-337. http://l inks. js tor.org/s ic i?s ic i=0002-8282%28198505%2975%3A2%3C332%3ACATEOQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-I

Duchin, Faya. 2004. “Sustainable Consumption of Food: Analysis Scenarios about Changes in Diets”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, Vol. 9, Issue 1-2 (Jan. 2005), Working Papers in Economics, pages 99–114. DOI: 10.1162/1088198054084707

EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA). 2012. “Scientific Opinion on Dietary Reference Values for protein”, EFSA Journal, No 10(2):2557. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/it/efsajournal/doc/2557.pdf

Eshel, Gidon and Pamela A. Martin. 2005. “Diet, Energy and Global Warming”, Earth Interaction Journal, Vol. 10 (2006), No. 9, pp. 1-17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/EI167.1

Eurispes. 2014. Rapporto Italia 2014. Datanews, Roma.

Falkenmark, Maline and Mats Lannerstad. “Food security in water short countries – Coping with carrying capacity overshoot”. In Rethinking water and food security, Fourth Botín Foundation Water Workshop, Madrid, CRC Press. http://webcom.upmf-grenoble.fr/edden/spip/IMG/pdf/LopezGunn_rethinking-water_2010.pdf#page=23

FAO. 1999. The State of Food Insecurity in the World. FAO, Roma. http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/x3114e/x3114e00.htm

FAO Global Perspective Studies Unit. 2006. World agriculture towards 2030/2050: Interim Report, Prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture and major commodity groups. F A O , R o m a . h t t p : / / w w w . f a o . o r g / f i l e a d m i n / u s e r _ u p l o a d / e s a g / d o c s /Interim_report_AT2050web.pdf

FAO, IFAD and WFP. 2013. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013: the multiple dimensions of food security. FAO, Roma. http://www.fao.org/docrep/018/i3434e/i3434e00.htm

Frank, Joshua. 2007. “Meat as a bad habit: a case for positive feedback in consumption preferences leading to lock-in”, Review of Social Economy, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Sep. 2007). DOI: 10.1080/00346760701635833

Farris, Paul W., et al. 2010. Marketing Metrics: The Definitive Guide to Measuring Marketing Performance. Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River. ISBN 0137058292

!

- " -xvii

Gaskell, George, et al. 2010. Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: Winds of change? European Commiss ion’s D i rectorate-Genera l for Research, Brusse ls . ht tp: / /ec .eu ropa .eu / resea rch /sc i ence -soc i e t y /documen t_ l i b r a r y /pd f_06 /eu ropeans -biotechnology-in-2010_en.pdf

Hébrard, Françoise. 2008. Essentia ls of Vegan Nutr i t ion and a Vegan Diet. happycow.net. October 2008. http://www.happycow.net/vegan_nutrition.html

Heisey, Paul, Sun Ling Wang and Keith Fuglie. 2011. “Public Agricultural Research Spending and Future US Agricultural Productivity Growth: Scenarios for 2010-2050”, Economic Brief, No. 17 (Jul. 2011), United States Department of Agriculture Economic (USDA) Research Service (ERS), Washington D.C. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eb-economic-brief/eb17.aspx

Hermann, Janice R. 2013. Protein and the Body. T–3163–1, T–3163–4. Oklahoma State University, Oklahoma City. http://pods.dasnr.okstate.edu/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-2473/T-3163web.pdf

Hofstrand, Don. 2011. “Can the World Feed Nine Billion People by 2050?”, AgMRC Renewable Energy and Climate Change Newsletter, Ag Marketing Resource Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington D.C. http://www.agmrc.org/renewable_energy/renewable_energy/can-the-world-feed-nine-billion-people-by-2050/

IPCC. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0521 80767 0

Hunter, David. 2007. Canadian Soy: Use and Attitude Study, October 2007, Presentation at the Soy 20/20: Unlocking the Value of Soy Protein in Consumer Foods Convention, Soy20/20, Guelph. http://www.soy2020.ca/pdfs/David-Hunter-presentation.pdf

International Food Council Foundation. 2014. The 2013 Food & Health Survey: Consumer Attitudes toward Food Safety, Nutrition, and Health. International Food Council Foundation, Washington D.C. http//:www.foodinsight.org/article/2014-food-and-health-survey

International Food Council Foundation. 2013. The2013 Functional Foods Consumer Su r vey. I n t e r na t i ona l Food Counc i l Founda t i on , Wash i ng ton D .C . h t tp : / /www.foodinsight.org/Functional_Food_Consumer_Survey

International Monetary Fund. 2013. World Economic Outlook Database, October 2013 Edition. International Monetary Fund, Washington D.C.

Jägerskog, Anders and Torkil Jønch Clausen (eds.). 2012. Feeding a Thirsty World – Challenges and Opportunities for a Water and Food Secure Future. Report No. 31. Stockholm International Water Institute, Stockholm. ISBN: 978-91-978846-5-5

Joule, James P. 1945. “On the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat”, British Association for the Advanced Science Report of the Fifteen Meeting, Chemical Section, p. 31. John Murray, London.

- " -xviii

Livy. 27-25 B.C. “Ab urbe condita”, Book 39, paragraph 6.

Lundqvist, Jan and Malin Falkenmark. 2010. “Adaptation to rainfall variability and unpredictability – New dimensions of old challenges and opportunities”, International Journa l o f Water Resources Deve lopment , Vo l . 26 , I ssue 4 (2010 ) . DOI :10.1080/07900627.2010.519488

Lundqvist, Jan and Peter H. Gleick. 1997. Sustaining Our Waters into the 21st Century. Stockholm Environment Institute, Stockholm. ISBN: 91-88714-44-6

Malthus, Robert T. 1789. An Essay on the Principle of Population. London, United Kingdom, Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPop3.html

Mendel, Lafayette and Thomas B. Osborne. 1919. “A method of expressing numerically, the growth-promoting value of proteins”, Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 37, pp. 223 - 229, in Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 35, Issue 8 (1977), pp. 207 - 209. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1977.tb06601.x

Mintz, Sidney W. and Chee Beng Tan. 2001. “Bean-curd consumption in Hong Kong.” Journal of Ethnology, Vol. 40, No 2 (Spring 2001), pp. 113 - 128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3773926 .

Molden, David. 2007. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture. Earthscan and International Water Management Ins t i tu te , London. h t tp : / /www. iwmi .cg ia r.org/assessment/ f i l es_new/synthes is /Summary_SynthesisBook.pdf

Mulder, Gerardus J. 1839. “Ueber die Zusammensetzung einiger thier ischen Substanzen”, Journal für praktische Chemie, Vol. 16, pp 129 - 152 (1839). DOI:10.1002/prac.18390160137

Osborne, Thomas B. 1914. “Amino-acids in nutrition and growth”, Journal of Biological Chemistry, No. 17 (1914), pp. 325 - 349.

Parker, John. The 9 billion-people question. The Economist print weekly edition. F e b r u a r y 2 0 1 1 . h t t p : / / w w w . e c o n o m i s t . c o m / n o d e / 1 8 2 0 0 6 1 8 # s t h a s h .5YFsg04I.guf7HN9u.dpbs

Perkins, Sid. ScienceShot: There's Cow in Your Smog. Science Magazine Online Version. 01 May 2012. http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2012/05/scienceshot-theres-cow-your-smog

Pi lat i , Luciano. 2004. Marketing Agro-Al imentare. UNI Service, Trento. ISBN: 9788888859088

Rockström, Johan, et al. 2011. “Global food production in a water-constrained world: Exploring ‘green’ and ‘blue’ challenges and solutions”, Water Resources Planning and Management, pp. 131 - 151. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN: 9780521762588

- " -xix

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002%2Fprac.18390160137

Rockström, Johan, et al. 2009. “Future water availability for global food production: The potential of green water for increasing resilience to global change.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 45, Issue 7 (Jun. 2009). DOI: 10.1029/2007WR006767

Rose, William C. Ph.D. 1949. “Amino Acid Requirements of Man”, Nutrition Reviews, Vol. 34, Issue 10 (Oct. 1976), pp. 307 - 309. DOI: 10.1111/j.1753-4887.1976.tb05679.x

Rose, William C. Ph.D., Lambert G. Frederick, and Minor J. Coon. 1954. “The amino acid requirement of adult man: VII. General Procedures; the Tryptophan Requirement”, Journal of Biological Chemistry, No. 211 (1954), pages 815 - 827.

Satterthwaite, David. 2007. The transition to a predominantly urban world and its underpinnings. International Institute for Environment and Development, London. ISBN 978-1-84369-670-4

Sbraga, Luciano, and Giulia R. Erba. 2012. La crisi nel piatto: come cambiano i consumi degli Italiani. Federazione Italiana Pubblici Esercizi (FIPE), Roma. http://www.fipe.it/files/ricerche/2012/25-02-12_la_crisi_nel_piatto.pdf

Sloan, Elisabeth. 2014. “The Top Ten Functional Food Trends”, Journal of Food Technology, Vol. 68, No. 4 (Apr. 2014). http://www.ift.org/food-technology/past-issues/2014/april/features/toptentrends.aspx?page=viewall

Smale, Melinda, Derek Byerlee and Thom Jayne. 2011. “Maize Revolutions in Sub-Saharan Africa”, Policy Research Working Paper No. 5659. World Bank, Washington D.C. http://dx.doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-5659

Singman, Jeffrey L. 1999. Daily Life in Medieval Europe. Greenwood Press, Westport. ISBN-10: 0313302731

Shurtleff, William, and Akiko Aoyagi. 2004. History of Soybeans and Soyfoods, 1100 B.C. to the 1980s. Soyfoods Center, Lafayette.

Tertullian, Quintus F. S. 207-212 A.C. De Anima, Vol. 3, Ch. 30.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2009. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision, Highlights. United Nations, New York.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2011. World Population Prospects: The 2010 Revision, Volume 1: Comprehensive Tables. United Nations, New York.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2013. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. United Nations, New York.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2013. World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision, Highlights and Advanced Tables. United Nations, New York.

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2008. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision. United Nations, New York.

- " -xx

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. 2008. World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision, Executive Summary. United Nations, New York.



Van Berkel, Klass, Adam Van Helden and Lodewijk Palm. 1999. “A History of Science in the Netherlands: Survey, Themes and Reference”, ISIS, Vo. 92, No. 2 (Jun. 2001), pp. 367 - 369. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3080646

Voit, Carl V., and Theodor L. W. Bischoff. 1860. Die Gesetze der Ernährung des Fleischfressers. Leipzig & Heidelberg, Leipzig. ISBN-13: 978-1247942872

Wansink, Brian. 1994. “Advertising’s Impact on Category Substitution”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, N. 4 (Nov. 1994), pp. 95 - 105. http://www.jstor.org/stable/i358156

Wansink Brian, et al. 2000. “How soy labeling influences preferences and taste”, International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, Issue 3 (2000), pp. 85 - 94. DOI: 10.1016/S1096-7508(00)00031-8

Wansink Brian and Nina Chan. 2001. “Relation of Soy Consumption to Nutritional Knowledge”, Journal of Medicinal Food, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Dec. 2001), pp. 145 - 150. DOI:10.1089/109662001753165729

Wansink, Brian and Michael L. Ray. 1996. “Advertising Strategies to Increase Usage Frequency”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 1 (1996), pp. 31 - 46. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2474829

Yun Michelle and Yuriy Humber. Y., Cofco Buys Noble Agri Unit Stake as China Seeks Food Supply. Bloomberg.com. 2nd April 2014. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-01/cofco-to-pay-1-5-billion-for-stake-in-noble-s-agriculture-unit.html

- " -xxi

Acknowledgments

I am using this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who

supported me throughout the course of this two-years Master Course in

International Management.

Foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor

Professor Christine Mauracher for the continuous support, useful comments,

remarks and for having spent time reading this dissertation and providing

useful suggestions about it. Her guidance helped me in all the time of

research and writing of this dissertation.

Furthermore I would like to thank Dr. Danilo Pretto from the River S.r.l.

company for supporting my research and for introducing me to Dr. Ernesto

Marchese from The Nielsen Company S.p.A. Both of them willingly shared

their precious time during the process of data-collection for my market

analysis and for their support and guidance. With regards to Dr. Ernesto

Marchese, I express to him my warmest thanks and gratitude for kindly

having provided all the data related to the Italian market of plant products.

During the period of two years, many friends are helpful to color my life. I

have to acknowledge all of my course colleagues and my friends for that.

I would like to thank my loved ones, who have supported me throughout

entire process, both by keeping me harmonious and helping me putting

pieces together. I will be grateful forever for your love.

A very special thank goes to my beloved girlfriend Rachele, for all her

support in those years, for all the time dedicated to me and for her love.

Last but not the least important, I owe more than thanks to my family

members which includes my parents and an younger brother, for their

financial support and encouragement throughout my life. Without their

support, it is impossible for me to finish my college and graduate education

seamlessly.

- " -xxii

“The Italian Market of Plant Products: a short- lived ...

Documents

Transcript of “The Italian Market of Plant Products: a short- lived ...