Big Food's Plan for Growth: Less of what you need, more of what you crave.

I saw a bit on the Daily Show this morning. Previously-eliminated communicable diseases are making a comeback because white upper-middle-class liberals are succumbing to the same anti-science paranoia that drives anti-government, pro-religion conservatives. Very purposefully, there was an interview with a life-style blogger with over 40,000 regular hits to her page who firmly said that even if all the scientific evidence proves that vaccines are safe and effective, there is still no way she'll believe it, no way no how and close the door behind you.

I'm still midway through the Salt Sugar Fat  book, but the amount of documented evidence that piles up on the following two points is startling.

1. Food is addictive when manipulated correctly. 
2. Big Food knows this and uses it for their own profit at the cost of our health, swapping words like "crave" for "addict". 

I previously thought that this was a bit nuts, but the evidence says otherwise. Personal experience of wrestling with the sugar monkey on my back is really beside the point; people who hold up personal anecdotes as evidence are idiots.

I'm wary of becoming the woman from the Daily Show interview, so I'm going to refrain from letting it build up into one long uber-rant about Salt Sugar Fat. However, there was one angle that cut to the core of last week's entry, of which ruminated on how the desire for profit tends to outweigh the desire for solutions in both the nutrition and fitness industries. After posting on Facebook, a good friend replied with another link.

Food companies frame obesity as an issue of the choices people are making rather than the choices they are being offered, said Ivy Ken, associate professor of sociology. The companies say the solution is for the public to buy their other products, which they have voluntarily agreed to provide in addition to their full-sugar, full-fat options.

When these food corporations create foundations and fund research to proudly, loudly and PR-office-maximized "partner" with legitimate pro-health, pro-public institutions, somehow the result is always to the benefit of the corporation's bottom line. To put it bluntly, the bottom line is to create revenue growth by ever-increasing the public's quantity of consumption.

The strategy has been very successful, Dr. Ken said. Some of the corporate partners' own analyses reveal that acknowledging obesity as a social problem and offering lower-calorie products as the solution has been very profitable. From 2006 to 2011, a set of companies that account for one-quarter of food sales in the U.S. increased their sales by $1.25 billion from lower-calorie products alone. It's important to note, Dr. Ken said, that sales of their higher-calorie products did not decline as a result. Rather, these sales also grew by $278 million in this period.

In Salt Sugar Fat, this is discussed in industry terms as "line extension":

When people clamor loudly enough for healthier products, enough so that they are willing to sacrifice some of the pleasure these products provided, companies produce a better-for-you formulation. Whether it's low-tar cigarettes, low-calorie beer, or lower-fat potato chips, these healthier versions are no threat to the mainline products. In fact, if done right, they can boost sales for the original full-calorie and full-fat versions by attracting new shoppers to the overall brand. The food managers working for Philip Morris put line extensions in motion throughout the grocery store.

Yeah, that Philip Morris, the tobacco king: they bought up General Mills and Kraft among other companies with tobacco money when the public finally turned on their main product, and brought their skills of managing addictive products to the food world. Line extension worked for cigarettes, why not for cookies? (Hello Oreo Double Triple stuffed and seasonal varieties...)

Menthol Lite Oreos up next.

Before the food industry figured this out, they had a phenomenal hit, then a phenomenal failure, with the now-derided "Snack Wells" brand of cookies, which touted low amounts of fat. However, they replaced the fat with sugar, which had it's own problems, and they tasted pretty bad to begin with. When no-one got skinny but everyone got fatter gorging on them, the brand died, along with all the investment of money and time in it. Now with line extensions, if an extension flops, the brand is still well and alive to live (and profit) another day.

One interesting line extension any dieter of the non-vegetable/organics variety will be familiar with is the "100 calorie pack".  In the early 2000s, sales of all cookies were slumping because shoppers were learning to avoid the cookie aisle all together, probably due to the demonization of "carbs" then like we demonize "gluten" now. Surveys found people were realizing they were compulsively eating the whole bag or package when they opened up some Oreos or potato chips.

And that's good for....who?

So to get people walking back down the cookie aisle, things like Oreos and other cookies were totally reformulated to bring a reasonable amount of food down to 100 calories, and sales shot up....for all Oreos, including the much-more-than-100 cal-per servings kind. Why? Because like alcohol, tobacco and cocaine, individual will-power is only so strong, and if your user figures out "out-of-sight, out-of-mind" is a good way to get unhooked, then you have to do anything in your power to get it back in-sight, in-mind, even if it means making a terrible-tasting less-bad-for-you tiny package to get them rehooked.

The real solution (other than stop-eating-crap all together) is the near-opposite of line extension: reducing the sugar, fat, salt and calories of the main line, and giving people no choice to a less healthy version. The ironic thing about this is Big Food doesn't want you to know if they do this. McDonald's has quietly changed the formulation of things like the amount of whole grain in the muffin of their McMuffins across their entire system -- you can not get a 100% white flour McMuffin at McDonald's anymore.

They've chosen not to advertise it because even the image of being healthier without a choice is a big turn off to consumers. It's the opposite of fun, it's McNanny, it's Bloomberg's very reasonable soda "ban". Why do they do it? Isn't it obvious? Two reasons.

In the near term, it's so they can get a mention on the positive side in little micro-blogs like these. In the long term, when the powers put in place to protect consumers come after Big Food like they did Big Tobacco, corporations like McDonald's will be spinning the whole grains in their McMuffins  like it somehow makes up for the marketing to kids, denial of addictive characteristics and the cost of health care directly attributed to their terrible products. It never will.
-----

Until this week, I was a Chipotle virgin. I don't have a lot of space in my calorie budget for fast food (oh excuse me, "fast casual food") but my friend MAP was horrified when I told her I never had it. After a long and arduous period of time, we finally got it together and ate burritos together. Two observations:

• Though it was remarkably good for food from a corporate chain, the burritos at Dos Toros,  a local 5-store mini-chain, are better. I rarely eat there, however, because the exact (assuredly high) calorie count is unknowable because the law says only chains with more than 12 locations must provide calorie counts...
• Holy calorie-moly! I ordered a plain-ass burrito, chicken, black beans, brown rice, guac, sauted red peppers and onions, mild salsa and shredded lettuce. I purposefully skipped sour cream, cheeses, soda, chips etc and it STILL came out to over 1000 calories. If they offered a half-burrito, I'd be totally all over this, but the accepted serving size is just way too big to make this more than a few-times-every-year kinda thing. (PS - guac was spot on, worth the extra 200 cal)

No, you either addicted, a total fat-ass, or both.

-----

WEEKLY AVERAGE: 2890

Friday (and next Monday) not counted as I skipped off to the land of poutine, foi gras and foi gras poutine. Glad I got some riding and lifting in, as my exercise regime has been a bit spotty this month due to things outside of my control.

-----

MONDAY COUNT: 2510

SLEPT: 8:30pm - 5:30am, work nap 1-2:30pm,  10.5 hrs
Woke at 3 in hopes of riding after a long rideless weekend, rain sent me back to bed.

AM SNACK: 5:45am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7:15am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10am, steel cut oatmeal, 450 cal

LUNCH: 12:45pm, falafel, tomato basil soup, health salad, pickles, 715 cal

PM SNACK: 3:45 pm, momma salad, Grazebox seed mix, 300cal

DINNER: 6:30pm, shiritaki noodles with shrimp, shitaki mushrooms and oyster sauce, poppa salad with Ranch dressing, 585 cal

EVENING SNACK: 7pm, fritos, 300 cal
-----

TUESDAY COUNT: 2785

SLEPT: 10:30pm - 5am, work nap 1:30-2pm, 7 hrs
Fit in a weight lift between kids and work, felt great. Before getting a handle on fitness, I'd feel bad about the sessions I'd miss -- now I feel great about the sessions I get. Then, the bad feelings would lead me to just give up. Now, the good feelings bring me back after a period of scheduling difficulty.

AM SNACK: 5:15am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:15am, Fage whole yogurt with honey, vanilla and almonds, 500 cal

LUNCH: 2:15pm, chicken meatballs, steamed string beans, madras lentils, pickles, 660 cal

PM SNACK: 3:30 pm, momma salad, Grazebox cashews , 300cal

DINNER: 6:30pm, sautéed chicken breast, roasted brussel sprouts,  fritos, poppa salad with Ranch dressing, 865 cal

EVENING SNACK: 7:45pm, popcorn, +/-300 cal
-----

WEDNESDAY COUNT: 2675

SLEPT: 10pm-5am, 7hrs
God eating day, held off on eating 400+ calories worth of cashews to accomodate the big ol' burrito.

AM SNACK: 5:15am, iced green tea, 0 cal

BREAKFAST: 7:45am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 10:15am, steel cut oatmeal, 450 cal

LUNCH: 12:45pm, sautéed chicken breast, roasted brussel sprouts, quinoa, pickles, 650 cal

PM SNACK: 3:30 pm, momma salad, Grazebox popcorn , 220 cal

PM SNACK: 5pm, poppa salad with ranch, 170 cal

DINNER: 8:15pm, Chipotle burrito, 1025
-----

BIKE CREDIT: 600 cal
THURSDAY COUNT: 3590

SLEPT: 10:30pm-3am, 4.5hrs
Blood sugar dip, tired, and a slightly off poppa salad brought me to the newly installed ice cream case in the office cafe. Free ice cream FTW!

AM SNACK: 3:15am, iced green tea, granola bar, 150mg caffeine, 260 cal

BIKE SNACK: 4:45am, granola bar, 260 cal

BREAKFAST: 7am, apple/beet/celery/carrot/cayenne/cucumber/ginger juice, 160 cal

BREAKFAST 2: 9:45am, Fage whole yogurt with honey, vanilla and almonds, 500 cal

LUNCH: 12:45pm, chicken sausage, roasted broccoli, black beans, pickles, 550 cal

PM SNACK: 3:30 pm, momma salad, Grazebox crackers , 180 cal

PM SNACK: 5pm, work ice cream, 800 cal

DINNER: 7:30pm, vegeterian dim sum, small cup of ice cream, +/- 800 cal