OSI is a Major Leader

Many family-owned companies are only able to dream about going global with the opportunities that they have for their clients but for OSI Group, this was a dream that became easily fulfilled. They worked hard and they were able to achieve everything that they had dreamed of plus some. This is a great way that they are able to show off their business model and it is something that has allowed them to succeed when there were other businesses similar to theirs that failed when they were able to keep going with the success that they had from the beginning.

OSI Group started as a small meat market. They provided high-quality meats to a few customers and they were always run by people who were members of the family. They provided the meats but they also delivered an even better product: customer service. The level of customer service that OSI Group had was something that many people never actually heard of before and something that allowed the people to keep coming back and even referring them to their friends for all of the meat products that they needed to be able to have for themselves or their businesses.

This eventually allowed them to grow even further. OSI Group were far outgrowing the small meat market business that they had originally and they knew that it would be soon that they would need to get more out of their business. They wanted to make sure that they could get every customer taken care of and that they were able to provide them with everything that they needed since this is the business model that they always worked to provide to their clients even from the beginning of the way that things were done with the meat market business model.

It was not always easy for OSI to make sure that their clients were taken care of but they knew that they needed to get things right for all of their clients no matter where they were. This gave them an idea: go global. The global market was in need of a high-quality food service company and they felt that they would be the ones who could fulfill this need. It was something that many people wanted and, as soon as they broke into the global market, they were successful. This gave them even more capital to continue growing their business on foodworks.com.

While OSI has always been successful, they have also known that they cannot stop just because of seeing some success. The continued growth that they have seen is due to their undying effort to always be better than before. While they are now globally recognized, they still do not plan to stop with what they are doing for the food service industry. They are going to continue branching out to get to levels that no food service company has ever seen before and they are going to keep pushing the envelope to be the single most successful food service company in the food service industry.


A new study published in Nature.com concluded that stress may foil the effects of a healthy diet (“Depression, daily stressors and inflammatory responses to high-fat meals: when stress overrides healthier food choices,” Kiecolt-Glaser et al). The study, which looked at the interplay among stress, inflammation, and saturated fat, was a randomized control trial – the gold standard for scientific evidence.

To be clear, the randomized control trial (RCT) is the only authoritative way to “prove” anything. It involves having separate yet identical groups, altering a single variable among them, and seeing what new changes come about. (Think of those high school chemistry labs, and you’ve got RCTs.) Nowadays, they are used heavily in every science, including the “soft” social sciences, and any study that does NOT employ the method becomes automatically suspect.

But how effective can RCTs be with nutrition? To have any credibility, they would need to include thousands of participants, be conducted over years if not decades, and even then, they might be wrong because, unlike rocks in space and subatomic particles, people make horrible test subjects. No matter how much RCTs control for, they can’t control for genetics, and when it comes to nutrition, genetics is paramount. It’s why, for example, the Inuit can live off whale blubber while Europeans cannot (http://news.berkeley.edu/2015/09/17/what-the-inuit-can-tell-us-about-omega-3-fats-and-paleo-diets/). It’s also why, even within the US, people respond differently to gluten and carbohydrates.

Beyond genetics, they are still thousands of variables RCTs cannot hope to control. A test subject may stub a toe and set off an inflammatory response, or maybe one has a work deadline that raises her stress levels. Having many randomized participants can help, but such large-scale studies have drawbacks of their own.

The point is that, because we cannot control for everything when dealing with people, any nutritional study will inevitably apply to some, but not to others. This matters because policy stems from evidence, and with bad evidence comes bad policy. Recall Ancel Benjamin Keys, whose bogus study vilified fat and set dietary guidelines that may have contributed to the obesity epidemic (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486). We need to take any nutritional study, even an RCT, with a heavy dose of skepticism before accepting it into the mainstream.