Me, Myself & Media.

In the 70s and 80s, most manufacturers switched from using sugar in their products to using a cheaper substitute product -- high fructose corn syrup. Nowadays, HFCS is lurking on the ingredient list of most foods that Americans consume, but there is a move to change this. Some big manufacturers such as Hunt's ketchup, Wheat Thins, Gatorade, Pepsi and Mountain Dew are ditching the HFCS and adding real sugar to their products. The progression towards a more natural product has resulted from consumer demand, as parents and health-conscious individuals continue to raise awareness about the potentially dangerous effects of the artificial sweeteners. However, since the majority of the companies making the switching are not getting rid of HFCS in all of their product lines, the marketing efforts for the new and improved sugar-containing goods is relatively low key.
During all of the recent debate about whether or not HFCS is really unhealthy for humans, the Corn Refiners Association has launched several PR efforts trying to educate the public about the harmlessness of HFCS. However, more research points to the opposing side who claim that the human body was not made to digest this artificial sweetener. The controversy is reminiscent of the big tobacco law suits of the 90s, when the tobacco manufacturers were trying to inform the world that it was not unsafe to smoke regularly, despite convincing evidence proving otherwise.


For those who try to limit their sugar intake, there may be a saving grace. The FDA has approved the use of stevia, which is a natural artificial sweetener. In the past year, stevia has replaced lots of sugar and HFCS, but will results show in 10 years that this product is just as dangerous as HFCS? Why can't an unbiased third party prove or disprove the claims of the manufacturers and lobbyists? Surely there is an answer to the question of the sweetener's safety, one that should not be hidden in order to protect big money.

At long last, there is action being taken to remove high calorie soft drinks from schools all across America. A can of Coca Cola has 140 (empty) calories and 39 grams of sugar. This is atrocious, truly. And the fact of the matter is that kids should never have been allowed to buy these high sugar beverages during school hours in the first place. Perhaps without being hopped up on sugar, children will be able to concentrate better, and we can see the number of kids being medicated for ADHD and ADD decrease (that's a whole other ballgame). But I'll get off my soapbox now.

Coca Cola, Dr. Pepper and Pepsi have all joined forces to help remove full-calorie sodas from elementary, middle and high schools. While the program just happens to coincide with movements in the government to increase sugar taxes as an attempt to stifle soft drink manufacturers, the timing is definitely helpful in creating some goodwill for these three companies. The VP of Public Affairs for the American Beverage Association, Kevin Keane, said that while Coke, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper are "the fiercest rivals you're going to get" these companies felt that the program was "the strongest way to convey what they'd done and that they'd done it together." I really like that these huge competitors are able to join forces in order to act in a way that is beneficial to the public's welfare.

In addition, I think that Michelle Obama's new plight against childhood obesity is wonderful. We need a national role model like her putting her foot down and demanding change. The children of today are the future of tomorrow -- how do all parents not understand that? The odds are against obese children, in that the vast majority of them will grow up to be obese adults. This is scary. We absolutely need to all work together to change the staggering statistics that are out there on obesity. Seeing Coke, Dr. Pepper and Pepsi's program is really a huge step in the right direction.

After reviewing 17 food manufacturer's nutrition labels, the FDA has just recently issued letters demanding changes be made to the products. The violations include unauthorized health or nutrition-content claims, and unauthorized use of words such as "healthy," which have strict, regulated definitions by the Food and Drug Administration. I am a strong supporter in the fight versus obesity, a disease which is currently plaguing our nation. One of the main aspects which needs to be addressed in this "battle versus the bulge" is consumer education. I frequently have friends ask me about whether or not things are healthy, and what they should and should not eat. Granted I am not a nutrition major, I am not the most qualified source of information, but I am an avid reader of health-related publications, and I try to keep up to speed with wholesome, nutritious food items. I am glad that the FDA is enforcing the law, making sure that company's do not issue deceptive claims, misleading consumers about their food choices. One of the pillars that the American Marketing Association (AMA) stands on is that they will "Do no harm", specifically that they will "consciously avoid harmful actions or omissions by embodying high ethical standards and adhering to all applicable laws and regulations in the choices we make." The food manufacturer's who have knowingly put false, deceptive claims on products such as "Trans Fat Free" should absolutely be held accountable for breaking one of the core values of the AMA.


Another action that the FDA is moving towards implementing is a re-labeling effort for portion size. I have very mixed feelings about this practice, because I do believe that Americans eat too big of portion sizes, and that they need a guide on how much they should be eating. That being said, my cereal label lists 3/4ths of a cup as a portion size, and I eat just under two times that amount. In order to better educate the public about the real number of calories in the food that they consume, I think that nutrition labels should never be deceptive. An example of deceptive labeling is when restaurants' nutrition information (generally available for all restaurants online) has a portion size of two. Many Americans will eat everything that is on there plate, whether they are hungry or not; therefore, serving a customer with a plate that has enough food for two people is essentially just asking for them to overeat.


My hesitance with changing the portion sizes is that it seems to just reflect the fact that Americans do eat too much. I wish that there could be a way to say "Hey, if you eat 4 of these cookies, you will be eating 800 calories! You should really only eat 1, which has 200 calories." People need to be made aware of how many calories are in the servings that they consume. While I think 100 calorie packs are a decent idea, it drives me crazy the type of snacks that they package. 100 calories of Oreos, hmm that's nutritious. One of my favorite tricks is to use snack size Ziplop bags (reuse them!) and divide bulk items into smaller portions right after I unload my groceries. This way I'm never tempted to grab two Ziplocs, and I've created the portion sizes according to recommended guidelines. In conclusion, I think that labeling needs to be changing to get rid of deceiving claims, and portion sizes need to be updated to claims established by nutritionists, not by the manufacturers themselves. It is all about portion control and education -- ending this obesity epidemic is possible, and it is our responsibility to take action.