A reader, Alice Campbell, writes:
Coca-Cola’s new product marketing, “Share a Coke with “insert name here”” has got me thinking. I will admit, initially my thought on the topic was limited to disappointment at the limited chances of finding a can with my name on it. However, I have been pondering, is this marketing strategy an attempt by Coca-Cola to avoid responsibility for the health consequences associated with selling an sugar filled, unhealthy product? Will they attempt to claim that that the suggested serving sizes is half of the container because they are suggesting you share? I have not observed an increase in people sharing their can of Coke. Your thoughts on the issue would be appreciated.
Love the question, particularly because I was given one of these, name made to order. This can is most definitely not to share, not least because it’s the 7.5-ounce size (nevertheless, 90 calories and a whopping 25 grams of sugar).
Don’t you wish you had one with your name on it?
That’s the point. This has been one of Coke’s most successful public releations campaigns, ever.
But Share a Coke has generated criticism that it violates Coke’s promise not to market to kids. In Ireland, the cans appear with the 100 most popular names of children ages 7 and 8.
In countries like Pakistan, the cans are labeled with “mama” or “papa,” again raising questions about the target age group.
The campaign may be generating buzz—it’s fun to see your name on a Coke can— but once you have one, that’s it. Share a Coke is fizzling as a sales generator.
Better get your collectors’ item now!
The big nutrition scare last week was the study in Nature finding that in mice and, maybe, humans, artificial sweeteners mess up the microbiome and make some people even more intolerant of glucose.
The authors conclude that their results call for a reassessment of massive use of artificial sweeteners.
The study is complicated and difficult to read but the Wall Street Journal has a nice summary. It explains why the study is getting so much attention:
The new Nature study marks a significant advance because it brings together two separate areas of research—the role of sweeteners in raising blood sugar levels, and the complex workings of the vast colonies of bacteria that inhabit the gut. Individuals can have differing bacterial colonies in their gut, meaning people respond differently to what they consume.
The study involved several experiments. These found:
The Wall Street Journal quotes the Calorie Control Council (the trade association of makers of artificial sweeteners). The CCC said:
The results from the mouse experiments may not apply to humans, while the human experiments had a small sample size. It said further research was needed.
Despite my lack of enthusiasm for artificial sweeteners, I think the Calorie Control Council has a point.
The excellent report by Kenneth Chang in the New York Times explains why.
At present, the scientists cannot explain how the sweeteners affect the bacteria or why the three different molecules of saccharin, aspartame and sucralose result in similar changes in the glucose metabolism.
Chang ends with this:
Dr. Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and immunology at the Harvard School of Public Health who did not take part in the study, called it interesting but far from conclusive and added that given the number of participants, “I think the validity of the human study is questionable.”
Here’s why I’m not fond of artificial sweeteners:
Do they mess up the microbiome and cause glucose intolerance, insulin resistance, and metabolic syndrome?
That would be fascinating, but I’m reserving judgment pending further research.
In the meantime, I’ll take sugar—in moderation, of course.
Mission: Readiness, the organization of former high-ranking military officials concerned about obesity and other health problems in military recruits and personnel, has just released “Retreat Is Not An Option: Healthier School Meals Protect our Children and our Country.”
The report concludes:
We understand that some schools need additional support to help meet the updated standards, such as better equipment and more staff training, and that support should be provided. At the same time, moving forward with implementation of the standards for all schools is paramount. Students depend on schools to reinforce efforts by parents and communities to put them on track for healthy and productive lives. Healthy school meals and snacks are a vital part of that effort. When it comes to children’s health and our national security, retreat is not an option.
This is a direct criticism of the School Nutrition Association (SNA), which has called for such a retreat. In response, SNA said:
Recent reports by Mission: Readiness and other organizations have mischaracterized both the impact of the new standards on school meal programs and the scope of the regulatory relief requested by School Nutrition Association and other groups. SNA’s Myth vs Fact sheet on the new standards addresses how the new rules have contributed to a decline in student lunch participation, increases in food waste and financial instability in many school meal programs.
USDA’s data, however, argue otherwise.
The SNA, which receives nearly half its income from companies that sell food products to schools, now finds itself in opposition to the military as well as to USDA and consumer school food advocates.
If anything needs to retreat, it’s SNA.
As for why the military is concerned, take a look at this photo taken at the Las Vegas airport, sent to me yesterday by Andy Bellatti.
Remember the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation (HWCF)—16 big food companies that account for about one-third of calories in the marketplace—and the companies’ pledge in 2010 to reduce the total number of calories they sold by 1.5 trillion by 2015?
As I wrote in my post on the pledge,
What are we to make of all this? Is this a great step forward or a crass food industry publicity stunt?* History suggests the latter possibility. Food companies have gotten great press from announcing changes to their products without doing anything, and every promise helps stave off regulation.
On the other hand, the RWJF [Robert Wood Johnson Foundation] evaluation sounds plenty serious, and top-notch people are involved in it. If the companies fail to do as promised, this will be evident and evidence for the need for regulation.
So now we have the RWJF-funded evaluation.
The study examining HWCF’s pledge shows that the largest calorie cuts came from sweets and snacks; cereals, granolas and other grain products; fats, oils and dressings; and carbonated soft drinks. The companies participating in the pledge sold 60.4 trillion calories in 2007, the year defined as the baseline measurement for the pledge. In 2012, they sold 54 trillion calories. This 6.4 trillion calorie decline translates into a reduction of 78 calories per person in the United States per day.
The 16 HWCF companies collectively sold approximately 6.4 trillion fewer calories (–10.6%) in 2012 than in the baseline year of 2007. Taking
into account population changes over the 5-year period of 2007–2012, CPG [Consumer Package Goods]caloric sales from brands included in the HWCF pledge declined by an average of 78 kcal/capita/day. CPG caloric sales from non-HWCF national brands during the same period declined by 11 kcal/capita/day, and there were similar declines in calories from private label products. Thus, the total reduction in CPG caloric sales between 2007 and 2012 was 99 kcal/capita/day.
The second paper looked at sales data for households. It concludes that although sales of calories declined, they were already declining before the pledge.
Post-pledge reductions in calories purchased from HWCF brands were less than expected, and reductions in calories purchased from non-HWCF name brands and PLs [Private Labels] were greater than expected after economic, sociodemographic, and secular factors were accounted for. If the 16 HWCF companies had been able to maintain their pre-pledge trajectory, there should have been an additional 42 kcal/capita/day reduction in calories purchased from HWCF products in 2012 among households with children.
Mary MacVean’s account in the Los Angeles Times quotes any number of experts calling this an impressive achievement that will not, however, “reverse the epidemic of childhood obesity, especially among poor people and some minority groups.”
She quotes Popkin:
The calories purchased has really gone down. And most of the decline is in the kind of food you and I would call junk food or junk beverages.. But not all the news is positive…What we don’t have is an increase in beans, whole grains, produce.
Much publicity will be made of this small step in the right direction. But what does it mean?
Is the reduction in calories due to lower sales of packaged foods in general—the secular trend—or to food companies’ taking the pledge seriously. I vote for secular trends—fewer sugary soft drinks and sugary cereals.
The lack of evidence for increased purchases of healthier foods also is troubling.
Big retailers still show no evidence of promoting healthier foods.
Overall, this pledge is about selling packaged food products, not foods.
And what counts is what’s actually eaten.
The bottom line: Eat your veggies.
If you do—and manage to keep packaged, highly processed foods to a minimum—you don’t need to worry about any of this.
Addition, September 19: I learned about these papers from a reporter, who sent me the two reports and an accompanying commentary by officials of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. I learned later that the journal also published another commentary on the papers, this one by Dariush Mozaffarian, now dean of the Friedman School at Tufts. His analysis makes clear that the reduction in calories is fully explained by secular trends, of which food companies were well aware:
In this setting, the pledge appears to have been a stroke of marketing genius, turning their steadily declining calorie sales into a novel opportunity for self-promotion, an easily publicized but deceptive “sham” pledge that merely reflected ongoing trends…Although the food industry is a necessary partner for effective future solutions to address suboptimal diet, now the leading modifiable cause of U.S. deaths, we must remain vigilant and cautious about their intentions and objectively assess the evidence for real change—especially for promises that appear too good to be true.
While I’m thinking about trade negotiations, I came across this example of why trade negotiators fight over every word.
Responsible investment, they say,
is essential for enhancing food security and nutrition and supporting the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security. Responsible investment is a significant contribution to enhancing sustainable livelihoods, in particular for smallholders, and members of marginalized and vulnerable groups, creating decent work for all agricultural and food workers eradicating poverty, fostering social and gender equality, eliminating the worst forms of child labour, promoting social participation and inclusiveness, increasing economic growth, and therefore achieving sustainable development.
The guidelines are responding to concerns over “land grabs” — the term used to describe how corporations and governments are taking advantage of unclear land ownership in developing countries to buy up large tracts, regardless of consequences for previous users of the land.
Land grabs displace small farmers and have become the focus of advocacy by Oxfam.
In contrast, says FAO, responsible investment contributes to food security and nutrition through:
Increasing sustainable production and productivity of safe, nutritious, diverse, and culturally acceptable food and reducing food loss and waste.
At issue is the meaning of “culturally acceptable.”
The US delegation demanded a definition, objecting that the lack of one could lead to trade barriers against, for example, genetically modified foods.
It suggested this:
For the purposes of this document, consumers, through the free exercise of their choices and demand, determine what food is culturally acceptable.
In other words, says The Salt, “as long as somebody wants to buy it, it’s fine.”
The African delegations forged a compromise.
In the current version of the document, “culturally appropriate food” enables
consumer choice by promoting the availability of and access to food that is safe, nutritious, diverse and culturally acceptable, which in the context of this document is understood as food that corresponds to individual and collective consumer demand and preferences, in line with national and international law as applicable.
Aren’t you glad they got that settled?
I’m a big fan of Le Billon’s work (see comments on her previous book) and also blurbed this one, as you can tell from the cover. Here’s the whole blurb:
What I love best about Getting to Yum is how it celebrates the fun and joy of parenting—even of picky eaters. Following Le Billon’s advice and playing the games described in this book should make it a pleasure to teach kids about delicious food, encourage healthier eating habits, and counter the relentless marketing of junk food, without ever turning the dinner table into a battlefield. Any parent eager to get kids to eat vegetables must read this instant classic right now.
Here’s another post on US food trade agreements. This is a hot topic right now but so complicated—so many agreements and policies, and so many look-alike abbreviations—that the specific policies are not easy to understand.
As I mentioned in a previous post on the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement, The US has trade agreements with 20 countries, and believes these provide many benefits such as “fueling economic growth, supporting good jobs at home, raising living standards and helping Americans provide for their families with affordable goods and services.”
Trade negotiations must create win-win situations for both partners, or they fail.
They run into trouble when one partner has higher food safety standards than another.
T-TIP: The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Americans may hardly have heard of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP),but it has caused large public protest demonstrations in Europe.
T-TIP, according to the US Trade Representative, is
an ambitious, comprehensive, and high-standard trade and investment agreement being negotiated between the United States and the European Union (EU). T-TIP will help unlock opportunity for American families, workers, businesses, farmers and ranchers through increased access to European markets for Made-in-America goods and services. This will help to promote U.S. international competitiveness, jobs and growth.
The EU puts the matter more succinctly. TTIP (no hyphen), the EU says
aims at removing trade barriers in a wide range of economic sectors to make it easier to buy and sell goods and services between the EU and the US.
Sounds good, no?
As PoliticoPro explains, “U.S. ambassadors heart TTIP.” It reports that the US ambassador to Sweden went on a 7-day, 400-mile bicycle ride wearing a TTIP tee-shirt to sell the agreement “to small businesses, local political leaders and everyday citizens” through videos describing its benefits. And,
Why the heavy sales pressure?
It turns out that plenty of people do not “heart” the deal. In the TTIP regulations are provisions that would
The EU denies that these are problems.
On the other hand, a new report out from the European Parliament says that while reducing tariffs will increase agricultural exports from the EU to the US by 60%, and imports from the US by 120% (by 2025), there are some risks to EU producers, especially those producing beef and suckler cows.
Unless the US and EU achieve “regulatory convergence,” meaning similarity in standards, EU producers may face the increased costs of complying with their own more stringent regulations in use of GMOs, use of pesticides, and food safety standards for meat.
The secrecy issues
Like other trade negotiations, T-TIP negotiations are exempt from the usual transparency requirements. The EU explains why:
For trade negotiations to work and succeed, you need a certain degree of confidentiality, otherwise it would be like showing the other player one’s cards in a card game.
For a quick explanation of the secrecy and other concerns, see the video “TTIP: A Race to the Bottom” produced by The Greens/European Free Alliance.
The Greens point out that Corporate Europe Observatory, which tracks lobbying on TTIP, has
focused on the agribusiness sector showing that food multinationals have taken the largest share of Commission lobbying efforts for TTIP. There are fears such efforts have resulted in a corporate capture of the TTIP agenda, driven by some of the largest companies operating in both regions. It is likely to further add to calls for greater transparency in the negotiations, and may even risk stalling the deal altogether if efforts are not made to address public concerns surrounding its secrecy.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) is especially concerned about the secrecy of negotiations over the food safety provisions. Negotiations, IATP says
are conducted largely as if they were private business deals. Despite many public interest issues that are subject to “least trade-restrictive” criteria in the TTIP and other so-called Free Trade Agreements, access to draft negotiating texts is restricted to negotiators and their security-cleared advisors, overwhelmingly corporate lobbyists. About 85 percent of 566 advisors to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) come from various industry sectors.
The IATP’s analysis of leaked drafts of the agreement is enough to explain why trade agreements are so hard for mere mortals to fathom. Lobbyists, however, are paid to know exactly what the provisions are, what they mean, and how to make sure they are worded to benefit their corporate employers.
I’m trying to understand what’s going on with the bill the House passed on Tuesday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from doing what it proposed to do last April: define its ability to protect bodies of water in the United States against agricultural pollution.
Specifically, the EPA proposes that under the Clean Water Act, it can enforce pollution controls over:
The Clean Water Act gives EPA the authority to set wastewater standards for industry, including agriculture. The Act
The Clean Water Act most definitely applies to agriculture:
According to the account in The Hill, the bill prohibits the EPA from establishing any regulations based on the proposals.
Trivial, of course, is a matter of perception. Agricultural pollutants cause much damage to US waterways. The proposals are aimed at containing some of the damage.
No wonder agribusiness wants to stop EPA from enforcing the Clean Water Act’s provisions.
The White House says it will veto the bill. Let’s see what happens in the Senate.
Its major recommendation is just like the one from the World Health Organization:
The Heart and Stroke Foundation recommends that an individual’s total intake of free sugars not exceed 10% of total daily calorie (energy) intake,and ideally less than 5%.
The Canadian government, the Foundation says, should:
Shouldn’t we be doing that too?
As Dr. Freedhoff puts it, it’s “Amazing how forceful and sweeping public health organizations can be when they don’t need to worry about upsetting their industry partners.”