Posts Tagged ‘food-marketing’

Your tax dollars – fattening politicians… AND YOU

Tuesday, April 24th, 2007

read time: 214 words, about a minute

Michael Pollan wrote an interesting article in Time about some research done by Adam Drewnowski from University of Washington.

His question – is wealth the most reliable predictor of obesity in America?
Throughout history peasants were always bone thin and the aristocrats a bit more “fluffy”

Off to the supermarket he went with his imaginary dollar.
He discovered he could get more calories for his dollar in the middle aisles as compared to the perimeter… 1,200 calories of potato chips compared to 250 calories of carrots. 875 calories of soda compared to 170 calories of OJ.

Hence, you will notice – and I don’t have the stats – lower income folks have a higher obesity rate than upper income folks.

And here’s something else about those foods in the middle aisles…
There are 5 crops that receive about $25 billion of subsidies a year:
Corn, soy, wheat, rice, cotton.
In addition to the unpronounceable ingredients, what you’ll find in those middle aisle products is a lot of sugar (derived from corn – high fructose corn syrup) and a lot of fat (derived from soy). And of course they generally strip the wheat leaving it nutrient lite.

So, how much would a bunch of carrots cost if they received subsidies?

Your tax dollars… cheapening your food and your health.

  • Share/Bookmark

Made from sugar?!?

Monday, April 16th, 2007

read time: 284 words, about a minute

Merisant, manufacturer of Equal (that would be the blue packet) is suing Splenda (that would be the yellow packet) manufacturer McNeil Nutritionals. They’re suing for $176 million or so.

Charging big decrease in their sales since Splenda entered the market. Ok, technically they’re charging that the Splenda slogan “made from sugar so it taste like sugar” is misleading. They’re only looking out for you ;)

Symantics? Wellllll…
Splenda is sucralose.
They start with a sugar molocule and chlorinate and chemically alter it to produce “fructo-galactose”. Such a thing does not appear in nature and you cannot break it down and digest it.

Since it’s a “food” – well that’s how it’s technically classified, it does not go through that same kind of testing a drug would go through.

Chlorinated molecules are carcinogenic. They aren’t digested but instead accumulate in your fat cells.

There has been a swarm of “symptoms” associated with Splenda. There’s also quite a bit of politics with it.

Now McNeil claims that it does not say it is made WITH sugar so how can ANY consumer (I believe they don’t distinguish between literate or not, PhD in chemistry or not) interpret made FROM sugar so it tastes LIKE sugar as actually being in any way related to sugar.

Corporate jostling aside –
Sugar creates inflammation in your body which leads to nothing good.
Artificial sweeteners completely mess with your satiety brain signals… you’re not “satiated”, you keep eating…

Splenda controls nearly 60% of the sweetener market. Is it beeter or worse than the competitors? They’re all chemical toxins. I don’t see a point in arguing over which toxin is worse. Avoid them all.

Want to know more about Splenda…
Sucralose Toxicity Info Center

  • Share/Bookmark

Chocolate – a divergent fork

Tuesday, April 10th, 2007

read time: 127 words, under a minute

This seems crazy to me…
The Chocolate Manufacturers Association is petitioning the FDA to allow a couple of changes in chocolate.

They want to replace whole milk powder with whey, and cocoa butter with vegetable fat.
Why?
To reduce costs… by about 2/3rds on each ingredient.

But it WILL taste different (not as good).
For the most part, people are mighty picky about their chocolate.
I don’t think they’ll accept a “taste” difference.
It could be New Coke all over.

Meanwhile, heading in the other direction…
Hershey is adding two new products to its premium/”healthy” chocolate line of flavanol (antioxidant ) rich dark chocolate.

Chocolate – specifically, cocoa beans – have health benefits. It’s the added sugar and milk that wins candy a spot on the list of no-no’s.

  • Share/Bookmark

Kids eat what they watch

Wednesday, March 28th, 2007

In the largest study of TV ads for kids the Kaiser Family Foundation no ads for good stuff such as veggies and fruits.
40% of the commercials were for candy, snacks and fast food.

The food ads were for:
Candy and snacks – 34%
Cereal – 29%
Fast food – 10%
Beverages – 10%
Dairy – 4%
Prepared food – 4%
Bread, pastries, dine-out restaurant – 9%

Rather like the cigarette industry… get ‘em young.

  • Share/Bookmark

Where’s the fruit

Saturday, February 10th, 2007

read time: 119 words, just a minute

Leslie Mikkelsen, Prevention Institute dietitian presented a report sponsored by sponsored by the Strategic Alliance for Health Food and Activity Environments at the 2007 California Childhood Obesity Conference.

The report – “Where’s the Juice? Fruit Content of the Most Highly Advertised Children’s Food and Beverages” – revealed the findings of their study:

Product selection criteria –

  • Identified by Kaiser Family Foundation as a top spending advertised food on kid’s TV shows
  • Picture of fruit or the word fruit on the packaging
  • Commonly available at the grocery store

37 products examined…

-> 19 contained NO fruit ingredients (51%)

-> 6 had 10% or less fruit juice (21%)

-> 2 had 100% fruit juice (6%)

-> 10 had real fruit (27%)

Yep, ya gotta read the label.

  • Share/Bookmark