You’re trying to shield your children from junk food advertising. Limiting TV exposure, explaining why it’s important to eat real food, teaching them to prepare simple dishes. But then you take your kids to the movies. And interwoven into the narrative are all those products and fast food establishments you’re trying so hard to stay away from. Sound familiar?

According to a new study published in Pediatrics, product placement has become a prevalent advertising form in movies and TV shows. Study author, Dr. Lisa A. Sutherland, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Dartmouth Medical School, decided to research this subject after a night at the movies with her son a few years ago. Here’s what her team learned:

Sutherland and her colleagues analyzed the top 20 films at the box office in each year from 1996 to 2005. Researchers watched each film and noted brand-name references to food and beverage products plus retail food establishments, such as fast-food restaurants.

Of the 200 movies, 69 percent — 138 — featured at least one food, beverage or retail establishment…

Candy products (26 percent) and salty snacks (21 percent) were the most common foods seen in the movies, and sugary soft drinks made up three-quarters of the beverages mentioned. Fast-food restaurants, meanwhile, accounted for two-thirds of the retail establishment mentions.

McDonald’s topped the references to food establishments with 13.1 percent of them, while Pepsi and Coca-Cola were nearly equal (at about 35 percent each) at the top of the list of beverage companies whose products appeared in the movies. Pepsi food products also topped the list of brand-name food references.

A few comments:

1. Where can one sign up to analyze the next batch of movies? Seems like a great job, watching movies all day.

2. But seriously, as someone who worked in the consumer electronics industry in the past, I can tell you that from a manufacturer perspective, placement in a motion picture is considered the Oscar of product promotion. It’s a win-win for Hollywood and for the brands. Unfortunately the largest advertising budgets will always be for the Mc-junk foods of the world.

3. There is hope though. Since you are watching the movie together with your children, use the drive back home as

an opportunity to teach them how to think critically about the images they see.

What to do at the supermarket:

If your child asks for a product as seen on TV or in a movie, you needn’t automatically say no. The 80/20 rule should work here. If most of the time they eat OK, then a rainbow colored snack here and there isn’t going to bring on Armageddon.  If your children are old enough to understand, review the nutrition facts panel and ingredient list together, have them look for alternatives that are more healthful, and empower them by letting them choose something they found and is healthy enough. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

If you’ve ever been on a weight loss diet, you know how difficult it is to stay the course, achieve your target weight, and then maintain it for months and years. The majority of dieters fail to maintain their low weight for over a year.

For many, a diet means a temporary sacrifice and inconvenience in order to reach a certain goal (Weddings, bikini season, etc..). But unlike other one time sacrifices – working as a teen all summer long to save up money to buy a car, or spending 4 years crunching textbooks to get an engineering degree – once you’ve achieved your goal, you’ve got to continue working hard to maintain it.

Jennifer LaRue Huget, Washington Post’s Eat Drink and Be Healthy blogger, has a great piece on a current trend:

…a subtle shift in the diet-guidance market: Instead of prescribing eating regimens, many weight-loss experts are suggesting that we reevaluate our relationship with food, focus on eating healthful whole foods and use psychology to aid our efforts to shed pounds. read more…

What you need to know:

The weight loss industry is a huge business and still growing – close to $70 billion in revenue expected this year alone (compare to $500 billion we spend on groceries). But obviously something is afoul, as the average American is still getting heavier year after year.

A lifestyle change seems like a better approach, because habits are, well, habitual. We get used to doing things a certain way, and then it’s not an effort to continue doing them. For example, getting into the habit of eating whole grain products instead of refined grains. Getting into the habit of drinking only water. Getting used to less salty food over the course of several months through gradual reduction. Ditto for sugar.

We’re not saying that this is easy. If you’ve been drinking pop for 30 years, making it a habit to drink just water is a daunting task. That’s why starting young is a key success factor. If your children equate thirst with water, not juice, that’s a life lesson that will help them manage their weight ten or twenty years down the road (not to mention dentist bills).

Another issue to consider is the role that the food industry is playing in creating good or bad lifestyle choices for us. With snacks getting shoved in front of our faces every which way we turn, it’s so easy to succumb to temptation. Think Doritos and Coke when filling up the minivan, a 400 calorie latte at the bookstore, or even a “healthy” 500 calorie snack at the gym after a workout.

What to do at the supermarket:

For those of us complaining about the high price of healthy foods (fresh fruits and vegetables) here is some interesting math: 72 million Americans are on some sort of diet. They will spend $70B this year on dieting. That works out to almost $1000 per person spent on dieting, on average. Imagine using those $1000 to improve the quality and nutrition of the products you purchase – an extra $20 a week to get more nutrients into your body. And if you kick the soft drink habit, switching to tap water – that’s another $125 of savings annually.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Last month another brick in the stalwart battered wall of scientific and medical integrity in America was regretfully removed. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) signed a sponsorship deal with the Coca Cola Company to promote Coke’s products, more or less:

The Consumer Alliance is a program that allows corporate partners like The Coca-Cola Company to work with the AAFP to educate consumers about the role their products can play in a healthy, active lifestyle.

What exact role do sugar laden beverages such as Coca Cola, Vitamin Water, and others play in a healthy lifestyle?

None. You don’t need an educational program to figure that one out. True, a soda pop here and there won’t kill anybody, but you don’t need the Coca Cola company to tell you that. And your physician should be telling you to cut down on your consumption, not explain how to fit a six pack into your busy schedule.

The exact 6 figure sum paid to the AAFP was undisclosed. It was, at most, $999,999, but likely much less, and puts a $10 price tag on each of  AAFP 95,000 members. That’s a good deal for Coke, but for the doctors it doesn’t sound so great.

So why is this deal, just like Coke’s sponsorship of the American Dietetic Association, so infuriating?

Because the people at Coca Cola are so…nice.

Yes. on a personal level, Coke’s execs are lovely, personable, and amicable. So are the leaders of McDonald’s, Mars, and the rest of the junk food industry. But their companies have a slight image problem. It seems that the public has caught on to the fact that they are selling us crap, which in turn is making us sick. That nagging public concern is bad for business.

So all these amenable execs, which get paid handsomely because they are also very sharp business people, figured out a solution. —> Lets convince the public that we are not selling crap. Or not too much of it. And the little that we do is “fine in moderation”.

—> Better yet, lets find people who are the most trustworthy in consumers’ eyes, and have them tell our story. Enter the funding strapped dietitian organization and the AAFP. These organizations get to fill their coffers with much needed funds, and in turn acknowledge their newly found industry buddies.

Here’s what AAFP CEO Dr. Douglas Henley says:

…the deal won’t influence the group’s public health messages, [Coke] will have no control over editorial content. read more…

We STRONGLY DISAGREE.

It’s a question of human psychology more than anything else. On a personal level, once you get to know someone, talk with them, and then take lots of money from them, you are no longer objective. Your behavior changes because you don’t want to be rude towards your benefactor.

On an organizational scale, it’s not different at all. As Harvard Nutrition Professor Dr. Walter Willet said:

“Coca-Cola, like other sodas, causes enormous suffering and premature death by increasing the risks of obesity, diabetes, heart attacks, gout, and cavities. [The AAFP] should be a loud critic of these products and practices, but by signing with Coke their voice has almost surely been muzzled.”

Thankfully, a few brave physicians from Northern California agree, and about 20 of them have decided to quit the AAFP in protest.

What you need to know:

Unfortunately for us consumers, this is not the first or last case of companies swaying scientists into their camps. The next time you read about a scientific study and its results, ask yourself who funded it. If industry is behind the numbers, there’s a 400-800% increase in the likelihood that the results are favorable to the funder.

What to do at the supermarket:

While abstaining from soft drinks may be too hard for some people, try to gradually reduce your dependence on soft drinks. By switching to tap water, a family of 4 can save $500 a year and 10-15 lbs. of body weight per person.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

The Coca Cola company has announced a Global ‘Front-of-Pack’ Commitment this week in which it will prominently display the calories per serving of its products. In a press release the company boasts it is the first company in the beverage industry to make this kind of international commitment. The stated goal is

to increase consumers’ awareness about the calorie content of its beverages.

The rollout of the program has begun in Australia and Europe, and the US is soon to follow. The entire lineup of products should be covered by then end of 2011.

We are not at all impressed. On the contrary. Here is why. Read more…

Taxing soda pop, which seemed like a crazy idea just 12 months ago, is gaining traction with academics and politicians.

Recently, President Obama said a soda tax is “an idea that we should be exploring.” And in a research paper published yesterday by the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), a team of 7 scientists recommend taxing every fluid ounce of sugary soft drink by one penny. Those pennies add up to $15 billion annually that the federal government can spend on consumer education and healthcare.

The recommendations are based on research that shows:

1. consumption of sugary drinks has directly contributed to obesity in the US.

2. raising the price of soft drinks will reduce its consumption.

Of course the beverage industry is all over this, and in it multimillion dollar campaign, including a website nofoodtaxes.com, states:

Discriminatory and punitive taxes on soda and juice drinks do not teach our children to have a healthy lifestyle and have no meaningful impact on child obesity or public health. They just further burden working families already struggling in this trying economy.

Muhtar Kent, CEO of the Coca Cola Company calls a soda tax “outrageous” and likens the very thought of it to a communist conspiracy:

“I have never seen it work where a government tells people what to eat and what to drink. It if worked, the Soviet Union would still be around.”

Mr Kent is right, the government shouldn’t decide for consumers what to eat or drink.

But it should protect consumers from unscrupulous corporations who are literally shoving junk food and drinks down our throats. Everywhere we turn, soft drink machines, snack dispensers, candies, chocolate bars, more soda, more snacks. Not to mention the endless commercials, advertisements, and other branding brainwashing activities all aimed to increase our consumption and their profit.

However, as we have suggested in the past, taxing the consumer is not the way to go.

What the government should do is to tax these corporations, big time. This, through mechanisms similar to carbon offsets in the industrial sector. Let’s call these calorie offsets for now.

Here’s how calorie offsets would work:

for every ton of added sweetener (sugar or corn syrup), a company would contribute $3000 to government programs aimed at obesity reduction. Three thousand dollars is equivalent to the penny per ounce tax suggested by the NEJM.

This suggestion will likely infuriate Mr. Kent and his friends at the ABA even more than taxing consumers. So what. Coca Cola and PepsiCo are among the most profitable companies in the food industry. The Coca Cola company, worth $120 Billion, had a net profit of $6 billion last year on sales of $30 billion. Not bad for a company that sells water and fizz mixed with high fructose corn syrup and artificial colors.

What are the advantages of Calorie Offsets?

1. They reduce the profitability of sugary drinks and encourage manufacturers to shift to healthier products.

2. If a company chooses to raise prices of soft drinks to maintain margins, that’s perfectly fine. Market forces will work for the benefit of the consumer. Shoppers will now revolt against said company by buying from its competitor. The government won’t be the scapegoat. We’ll see then who’s accused of discriminatory and punitive taxes.

3. The offset money will be marked and used, of course, to undo the the damage to the public health and to educate the public.

To summarize, as their customers are getting fatter and sicker, beverage industry shareholders are getting richer and richer. The government should require these companies to directly foot the bill for the damage that they are causing to the public.

What to do at the supermarket:

A suggestion for those of you concerned about a potential soda tax – A family of 4 can save $500 a year just by switching from soft drinks to tap water.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

Here’s irony for you. Walgreens’ coupon of the week is for a $10 ENTIRE MEAL (complete junk food meal). On the same web page is  a link to their DIABETES center.

The meal includes a Digiorno pizza, a 12 pack of Coke, and quart and a half of Dreyer’s Ice Cream. We did some number crunching to see just how bad this meal can be.

The Entire Meal consists of 5160 calories, 672 grams of sugar, 54 grams of saturated fat, and 4700 mg of sodium. If consumed by 6 people, that leaves us with 860 calories per person and 112 grams of sugar! That’s almost half the daily caloric intake, virtually without any healthy nutrients. It’s 28 (yes, TWENTY EIGHT) teaspoons of sugar in a single meal.

No wonder there’s a link to Walgreen’s “Diabetes Center” right on the same page.

Shame on you Walgreens. Read more…

Men’s Health Magazine, milking the success of its “Eat this, not that” line of books, provides a grotesquely entertaining list of the 30 worst foods in the country. Most, as you can imagine, are from fast food establishments.

For each food, there’s also a suggested alternative that is more healthful, but, as Albert Einstein once said, everything is relative. For example:

Not exactly a perfectly healthy alternative. But sure beats 9 grams of trans fat and a days worth of sodium in one dish.

The list counts down from #30 to the #1 worst food in the US. Itching to die which food came in at #1? We’ve saved you 29 clicks.

Read more…

Image via Wikipedia

Happy 4th of July everyone. We’d rather it be called Independence Day, because that is what we have been celebrating for the past 200 years, not a date 7/04.

As we head to cookouts, picnics, bar-b-ques and other food related festivities, we should consider ourselves the luckiest people in the world. Democracy is not the default state of rule in many places around the world. Many countries are art war, some with neighbors, some with themselves. Our nation’s wealth has enabled many of us to lead very comfortable lives, beyond comprehension to many of the world’s denizens, who survive on but a few dollars a day.

Is it any wonder that the number one country people dream of immigrating to is the United States of America?

But we shouldn’t rest on our laurels. Our country isn’t perfect, and neither are we. Although we live in a free country, our choices are often limited. Without even thinking about it, we are steered in ways that are hard for us to resist. Say What?

We’ll take food as an example (surprising, heh?)

1. If you want to eat healthfully at a rest stop along an interstate highway, you can’t, because it’s all fast food. How much of a difference is there between Wendy’s, Burger King, Taco Bell, and Pizza Hut? They’re all different flavors of obesity-to-arrive-soon and heart-disease-right-after. And they all serve either Coke or Pepsi.

2. How free are families to choose the food they put on the table? With supermarkets stocking 45,000 items, most people would say very free. But a close look reveals that in each aisle there are a few dominant companies, or a few dominant types of food. In breakfast cereals, most of the 400+ boxes are manufactured by just a handful of corporations (General Mills, Quaker, Kellogg’s). Sure, you could buy that healthier brand but

a) it costs 30% more,

b) your kids won’t eat it because there’s no superhero endorsement on the package.

3. You’re at the ballpark, 4th inning, getting hungry. What about some food and drinks? No problem. That is if food=hot dogs, drinks=Coke or Pepsi. If you want to choose freshly squeezed juice, you can’t. A salad? Who are you kidding.

OK, these are just a few example of the limited choices we have.

Limited, unless we decide to swim against the current. We urge you to try, just so you can feel what it’s like to be truly independent. And if enough of us swim against the current, soon the current will follow us. (And that’s what makes this country great).

God bless America!

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Follow us on twitter: twitter.com/fooducate

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com

It took a lawsuit, but Nestle and the Coca Cola Company, who jointly market Enviga Green Tea, need to stop claiming it reduces weight. From the LA Times:

Connecticut Atty. Gen. Richard Blumenthal began an inquiry in 2007 seeking evidence that consumers who drink Enviga burn more calories than they take in. Blumenthal, who had said the claim might be “voodoo nutrition,” led the coalition of states and the District of Columbia in the settlement.

The companies agreed to re-label Enviga to add disclosures and disclaim weight-loss benefits, Blumenthal said Thursday. Any marketing of Enviga or a similar beverage that uses the terms “the calorie burner,” “negative calories” or “drink negative” must clearly disclose that the product doesn’t lead to weight loss without diet and exercise, he said.

“The Enviga lesson is that weight loss requires sound diet and exercise, not simply a concoction of caffeine and green tea,” Blumenthal said. “Enviga’s calorie-burning claims led to credibility loss more than weight loss.”

read the entire article…

What you need to know:

Health claims are regulated by the FDA, and must be based on sound science. In many cases the science is only partially established. In those cases, the health claims are qualified by a disclaimer (which usually appears in a much smaller font at the bottom of the package).

Enviga was introduced in 2006. The studies which led Nestle and Coke to the revelation that their caffeine based concoction will burn calories is based on a simple fact -  any caffeine product speeds up metabolism and creates a calorie burning effect for a limited time. The additional antioxidant EGCG (Epigallocatechin gallate), found in green tea, has not been found to “burn calories”.

It’s too bad Enviga doesn’t state the amount of caffeine in each can, but of course, that kind of information is not interesting to consumers, is it? Thankfully EnergyFiend has a list of all energy drinks and their caffeine content. Enviga boasts 100mg of caffeine in a 12 oz. can, roughly three times more than regualr Coca Cola, and 15% less than the Red Bull equivalent.

What to do at the supermarket:

Our usual advice is to avoid health claims, as they are merely marketing hype. Read the ingredient list and the nutrition label to get your facts. Watch your caffeine consumption by inquiring about the caffein levels in various drinks.

If you want to lose weight, limit your daily intake of calories, and exercise regularly. Processed foods, and even worse, liquid candies, will not be your savior.

Get Fooducated: RSS Subscription or Email Subscription

Help us test our new food comparison tool: alpha.fooducate.com