Wednesday, July 01, 2009

Keep Eatin' Processed Food

14 comments:

CNu said...

Food companies exploit the inability of such young children to understand the purpose of the advertisements and the deception inherent in them. They seek to make food of little nutritional value seem to be exciting, delicious, and fun.

Free gifts are a particularly effective way of attracting child customers. Free toys can double or triple the sales of McDonald’s meals to children. One of the most successful was the Teenie Beanie Baby which was thought to have sold 100 million Happy Meals in ten days compared with normal sales of ten million per week.

Fast food and cereal marketers often take advantage of children’s natural inclination to collect things by offering gifts in sets as collectors items. For example, when McDonalds gave toy Hummers with its happy meals as part of its “Hummer of a Summer promotion” there were 8 different Hummers to collect. When Frito-Lay offered small collector discs called Tazos free in its Doritos chip packets in 1996 it had to increase production by 40 per cent to keep up with demand.

Advertisers not only promote unhealthy foods but they create a culture where food is eaten for pleasure or fun without any need for discretion, limits or care. Often manufacturers use food additives such as colouring solely for the purpose of making it appealing and eye-catching to children. The UK Food Commission found that 75 per cent of food that contains high amounts of added fat, sugar and salt also contains ‘cosmetic additives’. These additives, including artificial colour, have been shown to increase hyperactivity in children.

Food marketing undermines the efforts of parents, teachers and doctors to teach children about healthy eating. The onslaught of advertisements for fast foods, sugary foods and salty foods encourage children to favour such foods over more healthy and natural alternatives, such as fruit and vegetables. The US Department of Agriculture claims that children get an appetite for high levels of sugar and salt in their food and drinks before they even go to school.

The food and beverage industries have denied the link between their products and weight gain in children and funded several studies to support this denial (see box below). A Yale University survey of 88 studies found that “Studies funded by the food industry simply did not find the degree of negative health effects from soft drinks that independent scholars discovered.


junk food, obesity, marketing, dopamine hegemony.....,

CNu said...

the flipside of dopamine hegemony.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Indeed CNu. And all this garbage called "food" feeds the weight loss industry and the medical industry -

Obesity rates continued to climb in the past year with 23 U.S. states reporting adults in their states are fatter now than they were a year ago, two advocacy groups said on Wednesday.

Looks like Kansas is representin' at 27.2% Craig

And you dare mock my pink salt! :-)
Me and mine ain't contributing to these numbers.

CNu said...

LOL!

Plan A. I could take this bait and run with it.

or,

Plan B. Stick by my guns and represent.

I'm a go with Plan B.

As I see it, the problem is chiefly driven by relentless and ruthless marketing;

1. what is communicated
2. how it is communicated (i.e., to circumvent thought and exploit instinctual triggers)
3. who this ruthless messaging targets (i.e, children)

Not only is Madison Ave. in full gear to exploit the psychological vulnerabilities inhering to the most vulnerable members of society (children) - and through them - to exert PCI (primary consumer influence) on their households. The technical point sources who actually concoct these junk food stuffs customize them for maximum dopamine addictive yield, as well.

It's a vicious cycle all around. I'm just glad I cook homestyle, old-school, from scratch with simple ingredients whose origin and composition I'm well aware.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Indeed.

Man, the marketers have done a number on Egyptians and, in particular, their children. In such a status conscious society, where conspicuous consumption is virtually mandatory, the marketers have figured out how to make McDonald's, donuts, soda and pizza a sign of status.

No joke.

They've mastered the con and they're now exporting it. Give it one generation, and home cooking will be a quaint thing that old-fashioned people do the way it is here.

Pink said...

McDonalds tried to set up shop in Barbados but we're not really red meat eaters so they failed miserably.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Is it mostly fish in Barbados?

pink said...

yeah fish and chicken

DMG said...

What I find annoying about McD's is that it's almost ubiquitous in Europe (there are more in Berlin than Chicago).

But, marketers try to get me to buy a Hummer too. The choice is my, so I currently enjoy my old Cannodale, but I may be upgrading at the end of the month. We aren't helpless to advertising. Although, I can agree to some extent that fast food, especially with super-size options are marketed to our kids, who holds to purse strings? My 11 yr old doesn't have a job. If I ever notice my boy getting pudgy, I look in the mirror, not the TV for blame. We don't avoid McD's, we just don't eat there daily, or even monthly. Moderation, but nobody wants to hear that because it's not sexy. And as far as "processed" foods making one fat--what about how many times fork meets lips?

The equation is simple: if Energy input > Energy output, the excess is stored as fat. That system kept our ancestors alive between meals. We are abusing that system now.

CNu said...

Doc, the average per capita American lifestyle is at 31 times a sustainable resource and energy level.

As a practitioner in one of the highest energy consumption sectors in this society, and, a handsomely compensated professional to boot - I'd wager that you're at the far end of the bell curve of energy and resource overconsumers both personally and professionally.

Have you consciously considered and recalibrated your baseline consumption in the direction of something more sustainable?

As a professional, exactly how much effort is being expended on making your work environment "smarter"? How much expended on making your work environment "greener" or actually sustainable?

I'm betting little to none.

Now, take those same questions, wash, rinse, repeat in their application to your personal lifestyle and lifestyle and material and energy consumption prerogatives.

I don't point this out to put you on the spot, rather, I point it out to encourage you to consider the plight of poor folks who eat lots of fast food, don't think about it, because it's primarily what's available within their radius of automotion, AND, it's what's been sold to them using EVERY available modality of persuasion for their entire television and media consuming life!!!

Not only do these 10's of millions of Americans not have readily available alternatives, the healthy alternatives they would have to expend additional effort and resources to obtain are more expensive and thus, as a practical matter, less available to them.

Bottomline, the system is abusing people - and that's a factor which must absolutely be addressed, as well.

CNu said...

In such a status conscious society, where conspicuous consumption is virtually mandatory, the marketers have figured out how to make McDonald's, donuts, soda and pizza a sign of status.

It's pure evil genius.

None of that is marketed as conducing to status in the U.S. or the U.K., rather, it's marketed as comforting, delicious, standardized, dependable, satisfying, and cheap.

One of my buddies sent me an article on how it's done in the U.K. this morning;

Fast food nations eating themselves to death.

Michael Fisher said...

DMG are you in Germany?

DMG said...

Michael,

Nein. I won't be able to make it out there this summer. Hopefully I can swing one or two medical conferences this next year. Why?

Craig,

Nah, you are putting me on the spot. The equation is fact. Don't forget the energy expenditure side of the equation.

"Have you consciously considered and recalibrated your baseline consumption in the direction of something more sustainable?"

As far as poor people eating poor. I get it. Cheap high fat, high salt food is cheaply priced. You get more Kcals per gram of fat than carbohydrate (more bang for your buck). I get it. I'm just saying you cannot blame everything on the marketer. People are not helpless lab rats living in cages. There is choice too. What do you think I tell every overweight, 40ish woman who comes in when her gallstones are acting up? Lay off the fatty foods, and choose other alternatives. McDonald's isn't cheap. If you ate there 3 meals a day, 7 days a week. That's (on the low end) $15/day x 30 days is $450. I don't think they take public aid. I know that's unrealistic, but my point is that that cheap food isn't so cheap. It adds up.

Now as far as not having alternatives, yes lack of transportation to get food is a problem (a big problem). But another problem is...and I hate to bring this up after the earlier conversation with II, about the black-eyed peas...but that stuff is killing us. High salt, high fat. In moderation, I say no problem. But "soul food", "southern cooking" etc, although tastes good isn't necessarily good for us in large quantities on a daily basis. Low fat, low salt, high fiber. That's all I ask...and it will keep you regular. :) Craig, we are on the same page. I just think the problem has more factors than just shady advertising. Fork to mouth.

uglyblackjohn said...

If it doesn't spoil - don't eat it.
Simple.

But the poor have an added problem of transportation. In the hood, there are few stores which sell fresh goods. Everything has to last (on the shelves) for a long time.