Balance of Food

Backlash against fear-based food marketing is the real fear

Fear-based food marketing has taken over: gluten-free, non-GMO, antibiotic-free & more. Learn more about what to look for on food labels in @drsusanmitchell's 8-minute interview with me for her Breaking Down Nutrition for Medical Professional podcast. https://t.co/iqT7WB9U97

— Neva Cochran, MS, RD (@NevaRDLD) December 28, 2018

"let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." — Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1933 Inaugural Address.

There is fear-based food marketing, such as calling something "natural" where there is no standard definition. As we see above, the movement by some dietitians isn't about that kind of confusion. Their fear is that consumers will avoid products with GMOs, antibiotics, and hormones.

The bigger question is why those dietitians spend so much time with their own level of fear.

An item identified as gluten-free is informational. There is not fear in something being without gluten. Those who are more sensitive have the fear of buying a product that can do them harm, especially over cross-contamination concerns. "Gluten-free" does not inspire fear.

A lot of people want to know if products contain GMOs, especially glyphosate from Monsanto. There is a concern of eating foods that contain glyphosate. If you don't care, you have no concern.

People concerned over the abundant use of antibiotics are fearful of antibiotics not working for them when they need them. People are concerned about eating animals and consuming their byproducts if the food they are eating contains antibiotics and hormones.

People who exhibit legitimate fear are underdogs in a situation. Those who support glyphosate, antibiotics, and hormones are in the vast majority of U.S. food policy. The easiest thing is to eat all of those things. When the most powerful exhibit fear and try to transfer their fear onto others, that is unsettling.

Have you noticed how the marketing of food has changed? Whoever thought fear mongering would be a part of it? I'm not talking about cibophobia or the fear of food that's a complicated phobia rather fear-based marketing and how it affects food choices. Choose food, not fear.

Let's say one of your patients or clients picks up a can of some vegetable at the store and sees words and symbols on the label that might include all-natural, no msg, gluten-free, antibiotic-free, made in the USA, non-bpa liner or non-GMO ingredients. Some of these terms are vague or have no legal meaning. What really bugs me is a label that states a product is non-GMO or gluten-free when it never would contain those things to begin with. So does a label like this suggest that the competitor next to it on the shelf may contain all those ingredients so you better not choose it? Is this fear-based marketing when the potential lack of consumer knowledge along with fear of certain ingredients and a label of symbols and words leads someone to grab one product over another?

This Dr. Susan Mitchell excerpt mentioned in the tweet at the top of this column furthers the paranoia. A product could put a label that says non-GMO as a benefit but there are few food products on the shelves that absolutely couldn't have GMOs. Anything that potentially has a sweetener could have GMO-filled high-fructose corn syrup, especially in a product category that shouldn't be sweet.

The dietitians on the podcast say consumers should ignore those concerns and worry about whether foods have fat or sodium or vitamins.

What's Tempting: GMO-free Cheerios

BalanceofFood.com U.S. food policy coverage

We should be thankful that consumers want to know what is in their food. There are a lot of ingredients hidden behind "natural flavor" (e.g., castoreum from the back side of the beaver is "natural flavor") and "artificial flavor." If a product doesn't lend itself to glyphosate, but you find out later that your Cheerios has been sprayed with glyphosate, you won't find out on the food label.

Information on the front of food labels can be sleight of hand, such as advertising "no trans fat" on milk containers. Most consumers know the back of the food label is most significant; when added sugars is finally on the label, consumers will be even wiser.

Dietitians go to school and gain significant knowledge. They should be pressing for fun and interesting ways to eat fruits and vegetables instead of wasting resources on sucking up to corporate food masters.

photo credit: Texas Farm Bureau

How to protect yourself since USDA declares pink slime as ground beef

The USDA, looking out for your corporations' best interest, has ruled that "pink slime" can now be considered ground beef.

Understand that "pink slime" has been in inferior beef for some time. Just because we knew about it didn't mean pink slime went away. The classification allows company to sell the pink slime by itself if necessary.

In case you didn't remember, according to yourdictionary.com:

Pink slime is defined as finely ground beef scraps, fat and tissue that have been made into a protein paste and treated to kill bacteria, to become a meat additive that is added into ground beef and processed meats as filler.

Ammonia is added to the process. Yum.

Pink slime conversions prove that food quality battle is all about PR

USDA needs better reasons to avoid telling us that we're eating pink slime

Cook to 160°F minimum a sign to look elsewhere for meat

You can avoid pink slime by buying beef from meat growers committed to a well-grown process from what they eat to how they are processed.

You can also get to a better temperature from well-grown meat because the meat will come from a single cow. Processing meat from multiple cows increases chances of e-coli.

The FDA and USDA is not here to protect you from pink slime or e-coli in romaine lettuce. You have to provide your own protection from those who want to sell you inferior meat.

Eat less meat but eat better beef.

photo credit: me