Posted on 12/01/2015 10:13:35 AM PST by dennisw
Group of food-science experts were painting an increasingly grim picture of the publics ability to cope with the industrys formulations from the bodys fragile controls on overeating to the hidden power of some processed foods to make people feel hungrier still. It was time to warn C.E.O.s that their companies may have gone too far in creating and marketing products that posed the greatest health concerns.
Pillsburys auditorium. First speaker was vice president of Kraft, Michael Mudd. œI very much appreciate this opportunity to talk to you about childhood obesity and the growing challenge it presents for us all, Mudd began. œLet me say right at the start, this is not an easy subject. There are no easy answers for what the public health community must do to bring this problem under control or for what the industry should do as others seek to hold it accountable for what has happened. But this much is clear: For those of us who've looked hard at this issue, whether they're public health professionals or staff specialists in your own companies, we feel sure that the one thing we shouldn't do is nothing.
Mudd clicked through a deck of slides 114 in all projected on a large screen behind him. The figures were staggering. More than half of American adults were now considered overweight, with nearly one-quarter of the adult population 40 million people clinically defined as obese. (This was still only 1999; the nations obesity rates would climb much higher.)
Mudd then did the unthinkable. He drew connection to the last thing in the world the C.E.O.s wanted linked to their products: cigarettes. And we could make a claim that the toll taken on the public health by a poor diet rivals that taken by tobacco.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Food that tastes good makes your body release endorphins, your body’s favorite way of rewarding “good” behavior. We’re all addicted to endorphins. That’s how they “make” food addictive. Which again puts us in the silly position of criticizing companies for making a product the consumer enjoys.
the phenomenon will be the salvation of Social security.
a trip to walmart quickly shows those that will die early, forfeiting their social security
They create junk food that is sure to be addictive. How?
By Hannah Wallace March 22, 2013
In “Salt Sugar Fat,†investigative reporter Michael Moss shows how executives and food scientists at Coca-Cola, Kraft, Frito-Lay and Nestle are well aware that sugary, fatty and salty foods light up the same pleasure centers in our brains that cocaine does. Though they avoid using the word “addictive,†they knowingly concoct “crave-able†foods that have a high “bliss point†of sugar and hefty “mouthfeels†of fat. At the same time, they employ insidious tactics to keep their “heavy users†using and to hook new consumers, especially children. If you had any doubt as to the food industry’s complicity in our obesity epidemic, it will evaporate when you read this book.
Moss is devoted to showing us how ruthless these companies are at exploiting our built-in cravings for salt, sugar and fat, aggressively marketing junk food not just to children but to the poor. The class division becomes even more apparent when Moss asks food scientists and executives at these companies if they drink soda or feed their kids Cheetos and Lunchables (prepackaged trays of bologna, “cheese†and crackers). They don’t. When Moss sits down with Howard Moskowitz, the man who reinvented Dr Pepper, to taste his signature drink, Moskowitz demurs: “I’m not a soda drinker. It’s not good for your teeth.â€
Big Food executives know that eating products like these causes severe health problems, and yet they work hard to make them as irresistible as possible.
Moss fills his book with a host of damning examples. Coke regularly preys on the poor and refers to its most loyal customers — in places like New Orleans and Rome, Ga. — as “heavy users.†In Brazil, the company wins over new customers in impoverished favelas by repackaging its sugary beverage into smaller, 20-cent¢ servings. Most of us know that Coke and Frosted Flakes contain unhealthy amounts of sugar. But Moss reveals that, eager to increase sales, companies are lacing once-wholesome foods such as yogurt and spaghetti sauce with astonishing amounts of sugar and sodium. According to Moss, Yoplait contains twice as much sugar per serving as Lucky Charms, and half a cup of Prego Traditional spaghetti sauce has as much sugar as three Oreos (not to mention one-third of the daily salt intake recommended for most Americans).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/salt-sugar-fat-how-the-food-giants-hooked-us-by-michael-moss/2013/03/22/50d0dc06-8768-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394_story.html
You know what that says when you take out all the hyperbole? They made food that tastes good.
I am surprised no one has mass marketed potatoes chips fried in duck fat. Duck fat is supposed to make the best french fries and best home made potato chips which some high end restaurants also make
yeah...you done posted that before.
pinged for later reading after I eat a large helping of moose tracks ice cream.
Who really thinks that?
For the price of a bag of chips and a pint of ice cream I can make a nice steak dinner.
Actually, I know people and, hate to admit, but even members of my family who seem to think that.
Mom called it 'step farting'.Quite a danger to others. lol!
/johnny
I try to only indulge in my love of coleslaw during the summer. That way I can leave the windows open.
Wow. Duck fat. The thought of it! Every time I’ve cooked a duck I set off the smoke alarm. But it might be worth another try to have a side of duck-cooked potato crisps...
Because that’s the ultimate proof that this whole “issue” is contrived BS. It’s not the food companies’ fault that the human body is hardwired to seek fat, sugar and salt, and rewards us for eating them by triggering the pleasure centers of our brain. They’re just trying to sell a product, and if their product doesn’t make us happy somebody else’s will and they’ll go out of business and the other company will succeed. Complaining that food companies try to make their food enjoyable is like complaining that car companies try to make cars safe and reliable. It’s just dumb.
The science of junk food is the science of optimizing what will make the stupid and the weak willed want (be addicted like lab rats) to keep buying and eating crappy junky processed foods like Lunchables? Pop Tarts? that I doubt you eat very often. I know I don’t.... I have never eaten a pop tart (maybe two when I was a kid) or a Lunchable
I would not work at a job that made junk food more enticing to the addicted. You would? So it seems from your posts/
No. The science of selling anything is the science of figuring out what the customer wants and providing it. Anybody trying to sell food, ANY food, is trying to trigger the pleasure center of the brain. Even health food is trying to taste good, they’re still trying to make your body THINK it’s getting that fat/sweet/savory hit that it desires. If anybody is playing the addiction game it’s the health food guys, because they’re actually trying to fool your body, they’re trying to hit those pleasure centers without actually providing what your body craves.
My only problem with Lunchables is they’re overpriced. I can put together a better tasting meat, cheese, cracker combo for cheaper, made worse because at my normal grocery store the Lunchables are facing the deli counter with all the Boar’s Head. I moved away from Pop Tarts when they moved away from the unfrosted, you can’t butter a Pop Tart with frosting, there’s no place for the butter to sink into.
They aren’t trying to entice addicts. They’re trying to compete. Everybody knows what people want to eat, you can provide it or you can’t. If you don’t, your product will fail, and the company will fail. We see this over and over when McD tries to provide “healthy options”, their attempts always fail in the market, nobody goes to McD for a salad. And as you look at the failure of many healthy franchises you can see people don’t even go to salad place for a salad. Really as far as triggering pleasure centers are concerned there’s no difference between junk food and gourmet, they’re both trying to make the consumer say “that tasted good and I want to eat it again soon”. We just don’t have a problem with $50 a plate places doing it, we only complain when it’s $5 a bag places. The chemistry is the same, the business model is the same, the only difference is the price and how much people whine.
I’d rather work for a company that provides the customers what they want. Those jobs last longer.
The junk food business is all about creating junk food addicts, many of them children. Then to design the food (as covered in the original NYTimes article) so they are repeat buyers. Zombie buyers. Buyers (the stupid and the weak willed) compelled to buy type X junk food that satisfies the cravings (low level addictions) created by the junk food pushers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.