Ads that make you go hmmmm

Kelloggs took superfluous marketing claims to a whole new level with it’s recent claims that Cocoa Krispies, a cereal that boasts 11 grams of sugar in a single potion of 31 grams - yes, ONE THIRD of the cereal is pure sugar,  “Now helps support your kid’s Immunity” in huge type splashed across the front of the cereal box.

The city of San Francisco sent a letter of concerns to both Kellogg and the FDA, questioning whether the claims go too far and outwardly misleading to parents with H1N1 concerns.  The Rudd Center pointedly noted:

Of all claims on cereal boxes, “this one belongs in the hall of fame,” says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. “By their logic, you can spray vitamins on a pile of leaves, and it will boost immunity.”

No sooner did Smart Choices fade from prominence, Big Food came up with something equally devious and absurd.  Food labeling lies - its like playing wack-a-mole at the grocery store.

This halloween brings us pumpkin, ghost, and cat peeps.

Let the peep halloween dioramas begin!!

The Rudd Center has a great little calculator that estimates how much revenue a city or state could generate with a tax on sugar sweetened beverages.  On the low end with a tax of 1 cent per ounce, Washington, DC could generate $25 million per year:

The big winner? California with an estimated intake of $1.8 billion per year.  And we all know they could use the money.

(H/T Bitten)

from Ali Savino <XXX@gmail.com> to mommy savino <XXX@aol.com> date Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 5:15 PM subject It’s EVIL mailed-by gmail.com

http://www.sacbee.com/topstories/story/2188612.html

My mother drinks Coke with dinner every night, and I admit, it grosses me out. No, she’s not overweight, but it’s still not good for her.  What can I say? I care, can’t you tell?

And yes, she does sign her name as “mommy savino”.  I wonder if she remembers doing that.  I further wonder whether she uses this email for work.

New York City has a new, rather disgusting ad out trying to convince New Yorkers to chug less sugar.

It took me a little while to recognize that it was human fat which was being poured out of the bottle. The Ethicurean wonders if the $277,000 price tag on these ads is worth it, but considering that 3.2 million New Yorkers are over-weight or obese, it might be too expensive NOT to run these ads.

A huge debate has bubbled up in Boulder County, CO over whether farmers can plant GMO sugar beet seeds.  This will set an interesting precedent that could potentially be copied elsewhere in the country.  The good folks in Boulder seem to realize the importance, so they are putting off a decision until the issue can be studied in full and they can come up with a comprehensive ruling on GMO seeds.

Last summer, the Corn Refiners Association came out with this heavily spoofed ad defending high fructose corn syrup. Us lucky duckies in DC were treated to this inanity on shows like Meet the Press where the CRA could get their important message out to American moms US lawmakers, who are so critical to their survival.

Now, those of us in the DC area are being bombarded with a new round of ads on a different medium - Google Ads. If you’re in my area, and you seach your gmail for “corn” or “syrup”, you get the following across the top of your inbox:

High Fructose Corn Syrup - www.SweetSurprise.com/ - What Does Scientific Research Really Say About HFCS?

photo courtesy of flickr user uwe hermann

Food companies sent a cheerful letter to Ag Secretary Vilsack this past week, warning of sugar shortages, leading to higher prices for consumers, manufacturing layoffs and that “trading patterns will be distorted” which sounds ominous, doesn’t it? Yes, folks, according to the food companies, it is the end of the world as we know it, and the USDA must act fast fast fast, to lower sugar trade barriers, or else!

Are sugar price up?  Futures on sugar are up:

The futures price of sugar traded on world markets closed at 22.2 cents a pound Thursday, down about a penny from the previous day but still up 72% in six months. Weather problems in the sugar-producing regions of India, the diversion of Brazilian sugar cane to produce ethanol, and a growing global sweet tooth are behind the increase, according to analysts.

However, wholesale prices are no where near that elevated:

There is considerable debate about whether the run-up in sugar prices is a sign of a looming crisis. Just a fraction of global sugar supplies is traded on international markets. And according to the USDA, the wholesale price of sugar in the United States has risen by just 15% from a year ago to a little under 35 cents a pound.

So what gives? Turns out this is just a good old fashion shake down of the monopolistic variety. First, maybe higher prices for sugar wouldn’t be such a bad thing for Americans’ ever increasing waistbands, Second, while the letter darkly warns this may be the end of sugar, sugar suppliers assure the public that no such nonsense if on the horizon. Big Food wants the USDA to increase trade quotas so that they can push down sugar prices even more, bringing US sugar farmers closer to the brink of insolvency.  Maybe if the processors get their way sugar will go the way of the dairy crisis.  Good times!

As the argument about food taxes mature, the food movement will need to gird themselves against the building “Food Police”.

Using the tobacco taxes as a model, we don’t have to smoke. We do have to eat and drink. Food is more than fuel and the aggregate of vitamins, minerals, and fiber. It is a cultural statement. It’s part of enjoying life. It’s an expression of taste.

Yes, a lot of choices are less healthy than others. Why do we have our choices? Because of the free market and response to the demand of consumers.

Free markets, glorious free markets, save us from our double chins! You have done wonders and have worked so well in the past like, like the fabulous job you have done with the housing markert. Oh wait. Oops.  Moving on, true free markets require perfect and free information.  Yet this author laments about onerous labeling requirements and disclosures.  There is no free market when producers and suppliers obfuscate the true nature of their products so that consumers will by them.

Secondly, yes, we do have to eat and drink.  We do not have to eat and drink everything out there. By this argument, alcohol should not be taxed either, because, hey, someone may want to reach for that bottle of whiskey at the breakfast table for their morning OJ.  Who are we to judge?

Mike Shelton, the author of this brilliant piece, also wonders, “t the same time, the government would commit to tax subsidies to stimulate consumption of fruits and vegetables. A curious notion since the price of veggies has never placed them out of reach”.  It seems Shelton has not been to a grocery store lately, where red peppers can top $2.49 a piece, and a bag of chips can be had for under a $1. Maybe he is fortunate enough to have someone shop for him.

Grocery shoppers, don’t you worry your pretty little heads though, because it’s not the food, its the exercise!

Why do we have an explosion of obesity? There have always been fatty foods, even more in the past than the present. We used to cook with lard. Not long ago, there was no such thing as “sugar-free.” Obesity has grown, in part, because our culture has created so many more reasons to sit down and stay down. Computer-based recreation. Employment that must be driven to instead of walked to. Decline in manual labor. Our normal activities used to burn the calories and bust the fat. Such is less the case now.

Of course, no one is talking about these real causes, primarily our grand transition from an agrarian nation to the urban and suburban. They are essentially irreversible on a societal level. We’re not doing a Pol Pot ban on computers. We’re not parking our cars to saddle the horse. We’re not going back to the life of 1900 when being fat was a sign of wealth and luxury. This script seems to long for the days of Farmer John pushing the plow. But John traded his plow for the tractor. The genie has long since left the bottle.

Of course, when its time to pay for the bike trails and gym classes, these same people will argue that its not the lack of exercise, it the food!  Love the circular logic.  Also note the complete lack of suggested alternatives to solving this major problem.

This gem has already been popping up all over the place and will be repeated ad nausea:

Using “save the children” as a shield, citing medical costs as a cause and disease prevention as the justification, there are forces at work to get us to surrender freedom of choice in one of the most basic areas of life: what we eat and drink. The goal is not our better health. It’s control and political power sought by academic and nutritional elites longing to be the parent of us all.

Ahhh, the paranoid delusions of grandeur.  How did he know that I spend my days fretting about whether Mike Shelton reached for that second donut in the office kitchen this morning.  So news flash to Mike: no one is proposing that your donuts should be taken away.  This is nothing more than a classic scare tactic primarily used by right wingers - they exchange “taxed” with “taking away freedom” when there is a vast difference between the two in reality. We just think that a banana or apple should be cheaper than the chocolate glazed at Dunkin’ Donuts. Your waistline will thank you in the end.

This piece was cross-posted at Change.org’s Sustainable Food Blog.  I’m helping Natasha keep the lights on while she’s off honeymooning.

Yesterday there was the startling report that 10% of all healthcare costs are due to obesity. That totals up to more than $147 billion a year. Considering that the current healthcare bills that are winding their way through Congress are wearing price tags in the $1 - $1.5 trillion range, it is clear that obesity is playing a large role in the spiraling costs.

While so many politicians wax poetic about keeping down costs, a sugar tax has been roundly panned as a non-starter. This is not surprising. As with tobacco, often public sentiment lags behind actual data. America still has a culture that believes that if you’re fat, well it’s your own damn fault:

Being poor in 21-st century America doesn’t mean not having enough to eat, but often it means being part of a culture where fattening, processed foods are not only relatively cheap and convenient, but socially acceptable. It also means having the kind of job that often isn’t all that rewarding, and you really just need to unwind after work instead of stopping at Whole Foods and whipping yourself up a nice tofu stir-fry.

This, perhaps, is what Bingaman really wants the USCO-OP ( United States Council on Overweight and Obesity Prevention) to change. Because let’s be honest: poor people know that green chile cheeseburgers will make them fatter than steamed salmon will, and they know that doing an hour of exercise will make them fitter than watching an hour of television. They know these things, but often they’ve had a long, hard day at work and they’re tired and hungry and just want to be left alone with their remote control and their burger and their Dr. Pepper.

This attitude is what is going to hold us back from really doing something obesity. Yes, people should exercise, but that’s not the whole story. We also live in a society where children drink more soda than milk and soda is one third the price of milk. Until the cost of food reflects the ill side-effects, people will still reach for the green chile cheeseburger, which btw costs one fourth the price of the steamed salmon. And elitists who don’t realize that should really shut their traps and not tell poor people how to eat.

So we have an attitude problem. Which is going to be a huge hurdle to clear. One the other side though, is greener pastures. Turns out that countries like Great Britain are already experimenting with sugar taxes. While we won’t know for years what are the potential health affects, we do know it has the potential to raise some serious dough:

And here’s the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as “less healthy” by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation — if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years.

There’s a new astroturf game in town, and thy name is Americans Against Food Taxes.  Soda makers and sellers are running scared and they are gearing up the campaign machines to fight the idea of a sugar tax; an idea which has been gaining momentum.

They got the savvy new media angle going on, too! Why they’re even on twitter!  So far they’ve mostly used the feed to announce their partners, like the South Carolina Beverage Association and the Wisconsin Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Store Association, and articles by well known dietitians like Dick Armey.  You know, regular folks like you and me.  And yes, Coca-Cola is on board, too.

They got a slick new ad, too. Lovable all American family? Check. Economical, responsible camping vacation? Check. Confusing viewers by blurring the difference between sugary soft drinks and healthy fruit juice? Check.  This one has it all.

The optics on this are not great for those who wish to see the true cost of unhealthy food be reflected in grocery prices. It’s too easy to paint this tax as nanny-state-itis and a burden on the average Joe. Critics will try to obscure the link between soda and obesity, even though institutions such as the Harvard School of Public Health found that for each additional serving of soda or juice drink(pdf) a child consumes per day, the child’s chance of becoming overweight increases by 60%. But that’s not going to stop Dick:

For years, critics of soda have argued that it is a unique contributor to obesity. This flies in the face of both common sense and scientific research. The fact is that Americans are getting heavier because we’re eating more and exercising less.

Imposing new taxes on soda is also a dangerous way to go about financing new programs like health care. Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation projects that revenue from a soda tax would generate increased revenue every year — from $4.5 billion in 2009 to $5 billion in 2013. Yet history has shown that if you tax a product, people buy less of it.

Catch that?  Poor defenseless soda is getting a bad rap. Not that he offers up an alternative culprit.  Nor is he willing to admit its a contributing factor in the rise in obesity. Plus, he goes on to claim that this is a bad tax because it is going to curb behavior that it intends to curb. Gotta love logic like that. We can expect lots more of the same from the food and bev minions.

There isn’t an obvious major advocacy organization to pick up the mantle on this and take on the food and beverage lobby. Maybe, just maybe, either the nurses or the doctors will take up the cause, but it is doubtful that they would be willing to expend the ammo on this fight. The Center for Science in the Public Interest has been on the case since 2005 with their Liquid Candy campaign, but its unclear how active they still are on the issue and much they have in the way of resources.

My guess is that health advocates are going to lose this fight, there are too many powerful lobbies lining up against a sugar tax. I do hope I’m wrong.  However, fighting for a sugar tax may open the door to a compromise solution of at the very least finally ditching subsidies for sugar and corn. If we’re not going to tax the empty calories, at least the US government can stop making them so cheap.

There’s a proposal in Nassau County, New York to tax fast food items an extra 2%.  The new tax is projected to bring in $12 million for the county next year should it be enacted.  They have a very complicated system to determine what constitutes fast food:

He defines fast-food restaurant as “any franchised outlet of a restaurant chain that derives 30 percent or more of its revenues from the sale of prepared, ready-to-eat food, and which serves one or more menu items that contain more than 0.5 grams of trans fat or 5 grams of saturated fat per serving.”

The one or more menu item definition is a little odd.  By this definition, the tax would able to things like apple sslices and salads as well as big macs.  Of course, some of those salads can pack in a scary amount of fat. The good thing is it would not apply to small independent non-chain restaurants, like you local pizza shop.  Still the focus primarily centers on fats and not sugar or sodium.  If the goal was to apply a sin tax like alcohol, then shouldn’t the tax be on any food that harbors more than say 20% of fat, sugar, and/or sodium?

How many sugar cubes can you stack?

Sugar Stacks will tell you. These guys blow legos away.

Looks like somebody made a boo-boo.  Some brits take a look at what’s in baby food, and the results are not pretty:

LONDON (Reuters) - Some baby foods contain as much sugar and saturated fats as chocolate biscuits or cheeseburgers, a British food pressure group said on Monday.

Publishing results of a survey of more than 100 foods for babies and toddlers, the Children’s Food Campaign said Farley’s rusks were 29 percent sugar and some Cow & Gate toddler biscuits contained trans fats, which have been linked to heart disease.

“The results of this survey are staggering,” said Christine Haigh, spokeswoman for the CFC.

Making your own baby food can be a cheaper and healthier alternative.

Choice is good.  Choice makes the world go round. But how many different types of sweeteners do American consumers need? There was the original - good ole sugar.  But that made you fat. Then there was saccharin, the first fake sugar, which brought us the wonders of Sweet-n-Low. The rocking 80s gave us aspartame.   But both saccharin and aspartame were strange chemicals and some feared they may be cause all sorts of nasty stuff like cancer and neurological problems.  Fun stuff. So all breathed a sigh of relief when Splenda came on the scene at the beginning of the decade. Splenda is a really, really concentrated derivative of sugar so it came from a natural source and tasted a lot like sugar.  Good stuff.  And now, ladies and gentlemen, I present you with the latest and greatest on the sweetener scene:

For the last decade the big three — pink packets of saccharin, aspartame in blue and sucralose in yellow — have fought to a kind of stalemate. But now a new player, dressed in green, hopes to shift the balance of power, opening up the $1.2-billion-a-year world of fake sugar to all kinds of changes.

The Food and Drug Administration agreed in December that rebaudioside A, an extract from the leaves of the stevia plant, is safe to add to food and drinks.

The stakes are high. Despite nagging health concerns and flavors that are about as much like sugar as margarine is like butter, almost half of all American households use some kind of no-calorie sweetener, according to 2007 figures compiled by Packaged Facts, a market research firm. Although finding a no-calorie sweetener that tastes exactly like sugar remains the holy grail, the street fight is getting people loyal to the distinct flavors of one fake sugar to jump to another.

The stevia products that are coming on the market now are not without problems. They cost five times as much as Sweet’N Low, the oldest and least expensive of tabletop brands. And unless the new sweetener is extracted from the right part of the leaf, processed correctly and mixed with bulking agents that soften its flavor, stevia can have a lingering taste of licorice or menthol.
But stevia has one distinct advantage over all the rest. Because it comes from a plant, marketers can call it a natural sweetener. And that allows companies that have invested millions in new stevia products to tap into two powerful markets at once: natural ingredients and low-calorie products.

See, its the latest and greatest - latest and greatest marketing opportunity.