Before you read her speech, check this out from Marion Nestle: "Does fighting obesity mean fighting corporations? So it seems." She says:
if you want to do something to prevent childhood and adult obesity, you are working against the economic interests of corporations that profit from kids eating too much food or watching too much television. And you must take great care to hold on to your independence.
Remember that as you read. Michelle said some good things, like:
So it's just gotten to the point where we as parents know that things have gotten out of balance. And we know that many of our kids aren't as healthy and active as they should be. And we desperately want to do the right things. But we're inundated with conflicting information. Our kids sometimes are bombarded by ads for unhealthy products. And many folks in this country are struggling to find foods that are both healthy for their kids but affordable for their families.
She talked about how she dealt with food before she was First Lady. She said:
So the last thing I had time to do was to stand in a grocery store aisle squinting at ingredients that I couldn't pronounce to figure out whether something was healthy or not. Like many busy parents, I was shopping primarily for convenience and cost. I bought products that were pre-packaged, pre-cut, pre-cooked. If it was "pre," I was getting it -- (laughter) -- because I was looking for anything that was quick and easy to prepare and to consume. And I was grateful for the time and the effort that I saved with these kinds of products.
But I was also completely unaware that all that extra convenience sometimes made it just a little too easy for me to eat too much, for my kids to eat too much, and to eat too often. And like so many families, my family fell into the habit of living that "grab-and-go" lifestyle, eating more and more between meals. And slowly, all of those extra calories really just started to add up.
Exactly! So what should we do about it Michelle?
Now, I'm not saying by any means that we should try to turn back the clock to how things were when we were kids, because those days are long gone. And life is far more complicated these days.
So cooking real food isn't an option? We just need to find the right kind of "healthy" packaged or prepared foods? Michelle kind of gets it - but she doesn't. She talks about needing to really revamp foods and not just tweak about the edges - but she's asking the junk food industry to do it! That's not their business, period (give or take Quaker Oats, which is part of PepsiCo). Here's her specific call to action to the GMA:
And that's really where all of you come in. As you know, you all produce much of the food that our children eat -- and have marketed to them -- each day. The decisions you make determine what's in our grocery store shelves, what's in our school lunches, and what's in the thousands of advertisements our kids are exposed to each year. And I know that many of you are undertaking efforts to significantly reformulate your products -- and I hope that the time will come when all of you are.
Many of you are also working to educate kids about good nutrition, and to limit advertisements for certain products to our children. And I know that a number of you -- and I've met several of the committee -- have come together to create the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation to help address the issue of childhood obesity. So there are so many good examples, wonderful examples, of folks beginning to move in the right direction. It's very exciting.
But I'm here today to urge all of you to move faster and to go farther, because the truth is we don't have a moment to waste...
And we need you not just to tweak around the edges, but to entirely rethink the products that you're offering, the information that you provide about these products, and how you market those products to our children.
That starts with revamping or ramping up your efforts to reformulate your products, particularly those aimed at kids, so that they have less fat, salt, and sugar, and more of the nutrients that our kids need.
And I understand that this is easier said than done. This doesn't happen overnight. We all know that human beings -- I, for one, know -- are hard-wired to crave sugary, fatty, salty foods. And it is temping to take advantage of that -- to create products that are sweeter, richer, and saltier than ever before.
But doing so doesn't just respond to people's natural inclinations -- it also actually helps to shape them. And this can be particularly dangerous when it comes to our kids, because as all of you know, as parents, the more of these products they have in their diets, the more accustomed they become to those tastes, and then the more deeply embedded these foods become in their eating habits.
But here's the good news: It can also work the other way around as well. Just as we can shape our children's preferences for high-calorie, low-nutrient foods -- with a lot of persistence, we can also turn them on to high-quality, healthier foods as well.
But the only way we can do this is to work together. And this needs to be a serious industry-wide commitment to providing the healthier foods parents are looking for at prices they can afford.
Hmm, clearly she's read the David Kessler book The End of Overeating (or at least she's familiar with its content). Good. But making healthy foods is NOT THE BUSINESS MODEL of these companies. It just isn't. Why? They make branded food that sells with marketing and gimmicks. They use cheap, common ingredients and charge premiums for turning those cheap commodities into branded products that customers feel are unique and value-added. These products all have long shelf-lives, which are often achieved by removing nutrients and adding chemicals.
You can make a healthy product with a long shelf-life. But you often can't charge a premium for it or have the same profit margin you would for branded junk. For example, you can sell a wide variety of whole grains, beans, and nuts, all of which keep very well on the shelf for a long time. But how are you going to differentiate your grains and beans from those of a different company? Will you offer convenience, like single microwaveable servings? Will you add spices or sugar and sell different varieties? My hunch is that if there was a profit to be made here, somebody would have done it already.
And then there are fruits and vegetables, which are another story entirely. They are also hard to differentiate and brand but they are perishable. Because they aren't made artificially cheap like commodities (corn, wheat, soy, rice, etc), they require refrigeration, and retailers lose some profit due to spoilage, they are priced higher - leaving less margin for profit before they are priced so high that consumers won't buy them. Fruits and vegetables run entirely counter to the business model of packaged food manufacturers!
But here's what Michelle Obama says:
And again, I know these changes will not happen overnight. It's going to take a lot of tries to come up with products that are both healthy and still palatable for our kids. And that may mean some real creativity and effort on your part.
But what it doesn't mean is taking out one problematic ingredient, only to replace it with another. While decreasing fat is certainly a good thing, replacing it with sugar and salt isn't. And it doesn't mean compensating for high amounts of problematic ingredients with small amounts of beneficial ones -- for example, adding a little bit of Vitamin C to a product with lots of sugar, or a gram of fiber to a product with tons of fat doesn't suddenly make those products good for our kids.
This isn't about finding creative ways to market products as healthy. As you know, it's about producing products that actually are healthy -- products that can help shape the health habits of an entire generation.
She's right. But that still won't make fruits and vegetables any better adapted to these companies' business models. Here is more of her speech:
It's also about giving parents the information they need to make good decisions about purchasing those products. A recent survey by the FDA shows that the vast majority of Americans rely on labels to help them decide what foods to buy. But we know those labels aren't always as helpful as they could be. And it's hard enough to figure out whether any one food item is healthy. It's even harder to compare items. And folks just don't have the time to line products up side by side and figure out whether these compare or not. And they shouldn't have to. Parents shouldn't need a magnifying glass and a calculator to make healthy choices for their kids.
That's why, as Rick said, we need clear, consistent, front-of-the-package labels that give people the information they've been asking for, in a format that they understand. And I am so pleased that you all have committed to working with the FDA to develop these labels. We are so eager to hear your thoughts and ideas of getting this done right.
And you know there's absolutely no reason why we cannot find common ground on this issue. This one's a no-brainer, because this is the bare minimum we should do for our kids to help their parents make good choices. And this fall the FDA is going to begin pursuing voluntary agreements from your companies, and I hope that all of you will join in on that effort.
But your role in helping address childhood obesity isn't just limited to what you put in your products and how you label those products for parents. It's also about how you market those products to our kids. Our kids didn't learn about the latest sweets and snack foods on their own. They hear about these products from advertisements on TV, the Internet, video games, schools, many other places. And any parent knows this marketing is really effective. We've all had to endure those impassioned pleas in the grocery store for one product or another. Some of us have been treated to full-scale reenactments of TV commercials and jingles, word for word, right on key. (Laughter.)
I was sharing with somebody -- I was talking to Sasha about who I was speaking to, and she said, "Who are these people?" I said, "They make the food that we eat." "Oh, like Honey Nut Cheerios? Part of a healthy breakfast?" (Laughter.) Like, all right, kid.
So this isn't surprising when studies show that even a single commercial can impact a child's brand preferences -- and that kids who see foods advertised on TV are significantly more likely to ask for them at the store.
So whatever we believe about personal responsibility and self-determination, I think we can all agree that it doesn't apply to kids.
I think we can all agree that parents need more control over the products and messages their kids are exposed to. Parents are working hard to provide a healthy diet and to teach healthy habits -- and we'd like to know that our efforts won't be undermined every time our children turn on the TV or see a flashy display in a store.
Again, I know many of you have voluntarily committed to limit your marketing to children, which is a step in the right direction, an important step. And I hope that those of you who haven't will think about doing so as well.
But we also have to be honest. Even with this commitment, a study found that last year, while there were fewer food ads in children's programming, more than 70 percent of foods marketed to kids were still among the least healthy, with less than 1 percent being among the most healthy.
And in the face of these statistics, we have to ask ourselves, are we really making sufficient progress here? Are we doing everything that we can to secure the health and future of our kids?
So today I want to challenge each and every one of you to go back to your companies, take a look at your marketing budgets and ask some questions. For example, when you put money into reformulating a product to make it healthier, do you then invest enough in marketing that product to kids and parents? Or is most of the marketing budget still going to the less healthy versions? In other words, which products are you really selling? And what kinds of messages are your advertisements sending?
As a mom, I know it is my responsibility -- and no one else's -- to raise my kids. But what does it mean when so many parents are finding that their best efforts are undermined by an avalanche of advertisements aimed at their kids? And what are these ads teaching kids about food and nutrition? That it's good to have salty, sugary food and snacks every day -- breakfast, lunch, and dinner? That dessert is an everyday food? That it's okay to eat unhealthy foods because they're endorsed by the cartoon characters our children love and the celebrities our teenagers look up to?
So let's be clear, it's not enough just to limit ads for foods that aren't healthy. It's going to be so critical to increase marketing for foods that are healthy.
And if there is anyone here who can sell food to our kids, it's you. You know what gets their attention. You know what makes that lasting impression. You know what gets them to drive their parents crazy in the grocery store. And I'm here today to ask you to use that knowledge and that power to our kids' advantage. I'm asking you to actively promote healthy foods and healthy habits to our kids.
And we know there's a huge and growing market for these kind of foods. I have yet to meet a single parent who doesn't understand the threat of childhood obesity. I've yet to meet a single parent who is not eager to buy healthier products.
Michelle Obama gets it but she doesn't. She's asking for all of the right things, but she's asking for it from the wrong people. And she thinks she's going to get somewhere by calling for voluntary cooperation from that. She won't. That's been tried and it's failed. Here's what she did get.
Kraft's cutting salt, PepsiCo is cutting fat, salt, and sugar, and Wal-Mart is cutting food prices. The answer here is not cutting food prices - it's raising wages. It's closing the gap between rich and poor and building a middle class. Cutting food prices so that farmers aren't paid fairly will only result in farming practices that harm the environment as farmers try to squeeze more out of their land and it will result in more farmers losing their farms.
OK but how about the reduction in sodium, etc. That's a good thing, right? I mean, if people are eating junk anyway, it might as well be healthier junk. The counter argument is that when people think their junk is not bad for them, they might eat more of it. I don't doubt that some people might benefit from having less-bad junk if they were going to eat junk anyway, but I still don't think the companies responsible deserve any praise for their less-bad junk. And, on that note, I'd like to share what Fooducate had to say about Kraft's sodium reduction:
But before we all get excited, let's take a look at that product that's going to lose 20% of its sodium - Easy Mac Cups.
This foodlike product, sorry to be so blunt, is so awful that even a reduction of salt by 100% wouldn't make it something to be proud of. A 2 oz. microwaveable cup is a single serving.
Exactly my point. |
