Food Navigator’s special issue on breakfast cereals, plus additions
First see Bloomberg News on Who killed Tony the Tiger: How Kellogg lost breakfast (February 26)![]() What’s for breakfast? Re-inventing the first meal of the day
|
|
First see Bloomberg News on Who killed Tony the Tiger: How Kellogg lost breakfast (February 26)![]() What’s for breakfast? Re-inventing the first meal of the day
|
|
In 2013, Michael Moss wrote a long and highly entertaining piece for the New York Times Magazine about putting the advertising firm Victor & Spoils to work on making up a campaign to sell, of all things—broccoli.
The theory: marketing sells junk food so why not fruits and vegetables?
At last week’s meeting of the Partnership for a Healthier America (the industry support group for Let’s Move!), First Lady Michelle Obama announced that Victor & Spoils had created a for-real campaign to sell fruits and vegetables to moms and teens.
Meet brand FNV.
And don’t miss the video.
Some people who attended the meeting found this on apples in their hotel rooms (thanks to Marie Bragg for sending).
The produce industry considers this campaign to have “monumental implications” for its sales.
In other words, it is expected to work.
I’ve written about such campaigns in 2010 and in 2013.
As I said in 2013:
Marketing is not education.
Education is about imparting knowledge and promoting wisdom and critical thinking.
Marketing is about creating demand for a product.
But such campaigns clearly work. The 5-A-Day for Better Health campaign in the early 1990s increased F&V consumption—for as long as it lasted.
Although this campaign raises the usual questions about marketing vs. education, and what happens when the funding runs out, it’s not aimed at young children.
I’m wishing it the very best of success.
Yesterday’s Hagstrom Report quotes USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack’s comments to the Commodity Classic on the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee:
The “folks who put those reports together … have freedom. They are like my 3-year-old granddaughter. She does not have to color inside the lines.”
His 5-year-old grandson, he said, “is learning about coloring within the lines.”
“I am going to color inside the lines,” Vilsack said.
Sounds like the USDA has no intention of doing what the DGAC recommends.
This is why it’s so important to file comments @ www.DietaryGuidelines.gov by April 8. You can also register there for the public meeting in Bethesda, Maryland, on March 24.
Addition, March 10: Secretary Vilsack’s speech and press conference remarks are here.
Nancy Harmon Jenkins. Virgin Territory: Exploring the World of Olive Oil. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2015.
Although I don’t usually do blurbs for cookbooks, this one goes into so much depth about why olives and their oil matter—and how the olives are grown, harvested, and extracted—that I couldn’t resist. Jenkins is a wonderful writer as well as a splendid cook.
Virgin Territory takes a deep dive into the history, culture, and taste of olive oil. Jenkins grows olives, harvests them, and cooks with her own oil. A terrific cook, she passionately wants everyone to know the difference a high quality extra-virgin olive oil can make to any dish. I learned so much about olive oil from this book and can’t wait to try every one of her recipes.
The New England Journal of Medicine has a new study that suggests the need to rethink whether to feed peanuts to babies.
As the Wall Street Journal explains, peanut allergies can be life-threatening and they are increasing among the population.
I gave a talk last week at Hastings College in Hastings, Nebraska.
Before I left, Michael Moss, who wrote the New York Times investigative report about Hasting’s USDA animal research facility, mentioned the Kool-Aid museum.
The Kool-Aid museum?
As it happens, I adore museum exhibits devoted to single food items. The Hastings Museum houses a permanent collection of Kool-Aid historical materials and artifacts.
A Hastings resident, Edwin Perkins, invented this product in 1927.
Kool-Aid, in case this isn’t on your usual shopping list, is a flavored and colored powder that comes in small packets. You add the 4.6 gram contents—plus one full cup of sugar—to two quarts of water.
What’s in the packets? I was given a cherry limeade flavor: contains citric acid, maltodextrin, calcium phosphate, vitamin C, natural and artificial flavor, salt, artificial color, red 40, tocopherol [a form of vitamin E], BHA, and BHT (preservatives).
The less said about nutritional value, the better.
But take a look at its corporate history:
I loved the exhibit, even though you have to go through rooms full of guns to get to it.
The exhibit didn’t mention the Jonestown massacre, the source of the phrase “drinking the Kool-Aid” because Kool-Aid was not involved.
The uproar caused by the release of the Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) has been even noisier than I predicted, so noisy that USDA Secretary Vilsack appears to have pulled back on it. He told Jerry Hagstrom (HagstromReport.com) that:
He wants people to realize that the process of writing the dietary guidelines “is just beginning today,” and that he and [HHS Secretary] Burwell will consider input from federal agencies and the general public. He said he wants to be sure that people “know that I know my responsibility.”
In this, Vilsack was referring to the directive by Congress in the 2015 appropriations bill blocking him from considering sustainability in the guidelines.
As for the DGAC report: It concluded:
…the U.S. population should be encouraged and guided to consume dietary patterns that are rich in vegetables, fruit, whole grains, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in low- and non-fat dairy products and alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meat; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and beverages and refined grains.
Predictably, this did not go over well with the meat industry or, for that matter, other industries affected by such advice or groups funded by such industries.
Less predictably, the New York Times published an Op-Ed by Nina Teicholz, the journalist author of “The Big Fat Surprise,” a work based on her own review of the science of fat. In her view, mainstream nutritionists have badly misinterpreted this science to the great detriment of public health.
Her conclusion:
…we would be wise to return to what worked better for previous generations: a diet that included fewer grains, less sugar and more animal foods like meat, full-fat dairy and eggs.
But Teicholz’ book has been the subject of a line-by-line analysis by Seth Yoder (whom I do not know personally). Mr. Yoder did what graduate students in science are trained to do: read the references.
He looked up and examined the references Teicholz cites in the book as the basis of her views. He documents an astonishing number of situations in which the references say something quite different from what Teicholz gets out of them. At the very least, his analysis raises serious questions about the credibility of her views on the science of fat.
Let’s grant that the science of nutrition is difficult to do and complicated. The New York Times should know this, which is why I’m surprised that it would give Teicholz so prominent a platform without countering them with point-counterpoint views of a respected nutrition scientist.
It does little to foster the health of the public to make nutrition science appear more controversial than it really is.
The basic advice offered by 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee boils down to plain common sense:
Unfortunately, this kind of advice doesn’t make headlines or, apparently, merit op-ed space in the New York Times.
Dorothy Cann Hamilton of the International Culinary Center in New York sends this video in celebration of tonight’s Oscar’s event:
And the winner is…the latest creation from ICC: “Celebrity Cookie Couture From The Red Carpet”!
Enjoy!