Pepsi is about to put 8,700 of its worldwide employees out of work.   This might make you think the company is in trouble.

Let’s have some fun with the numbers reported by Reuters in today’s New York Times. 

Pepsi reports increases in:

• Annual dividends: 4%
• Expenditures on advertising: an additional $500 million
• Expenditures on display racks: an additional $100 million
• Fourth quarter profits: from $1.37 billion a year ago to $1.42 billion
• Earnings per share: from 85 cents a year ago to 89 cents
• Revenues: up 11% to $20.2 billion

Let’s get the logic straight here:

• PepsiCo made $1.42 billion in profits last quarter.
• The company’s revenues, profits, and returns to investors are increasing.
• QED: it is adding 8,700 out-of-work people to an already depressed job economy.

Only Wall Street would view Pepsi’s bottom line as problematic and its CEO, Indra Nooyi, as in trouble:

Ms. Nooyi has come under pressure from Wall Street for a stagnant stock price and a lagging North American beverage business. She has been criticized for taking her eye off the core business of sodas to expand into healthier products, such as hummus and drinkable oatmeal.

When it comes to Wall Street, forget about jobs and health.  Only one thing counts: meeting those quarterly growth targets.

Advocates for a healthier food system should not expect much help from food corporations.

They will only be able to help if forced to by public pressure and regulation.

For some time now, I’ve been arguing that legal scholars ought to be challenging the contention of food corporations that the First Amendment gives them the right to market foods any way they like, even to kids.

I simply cannot believe that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended the First Amendment for this purpose.

In December 2010, I urged public interest lawyers to examine current food marketing practices in the light of the First Amendment.  I am pleased to see that they are now doing so.

Samantha Graff of the National Policy & Legal Analysis Network to Prevent Childhood Obesity (NPLAN) forwards two co-authored articles published this month:

Health Affairs: Government Can Regulate Food Advertising to Children Because Cognitive Research Shows It Is Inherently Misleading, by Samantha Graff, Dale Kunkel, and Seth E. Mermin.

The childhood obesity crisis has prompted repeated calls for government action to curb the marketing of unhealthy food to children. Food and entertainment industry groups have asserted that the First Amendment prohibits such regulation.

However, case law establishes that the First Amendment does not protect “inherently misleading” commercial speech. Cognitive research indicates that young children cannot effectively recognize the persuasive intent of advertising or apply the critical evaluation required to comprehend commercial messages.

Given this combination—that government can prohibit “inherently misleading” advertising and that children cannot adequately understand commercial messages—advertising to children younger than age twelve should be considered beyond the scope of constitutional protection.

American Journal of Public Health: Protecting Young People from Junk Food Advertising: Implications of Psychological Research for First Amendment Law, by Jennifer L. Harris and Samantha K. Graff.

In the United States, one third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese, yet food and beverage companies continue to target them with advertising for products that contribute to this obesity crisis.

When government restrictions on such advertising are proposed, the constitutional commercial speech doctrine is often invoked as a barrier to action. We explore incongruities between the legal justifications for the commercial speech doctrine and the psychological research on how food advertising affects young people.

These papers are a great start to the conversation, as was a previous contribution from these authors: A Legal Primer for the Obesity Prevention Movement, American Journal of Public Health, 2009.

First Amendment scholars: weigh in, please.

And while pondering these questions, take a look at Raj Patel’s piece in The Atlantic, “Abolish the food industry.”  In his view, the First Amendment issue is a no brainer:

I side with the American Psychological Association in thinking that advertising to children is unconscionable. Rather than dwell on the First Amendment issue, which strikes me as an easy case to make, I think it’s worth addressing a deeper question underlying the San Francisco cigarette-in-pharmacy ban: Why allow an industry that profits from the sale of unhealthy food at all?

Additions, February 14: Michele Simon sends links to additional information about this issue:

http://events.lls.edu/past/food-marketing-lr.html

http://www.appetiteforprofit.com/2011/01/27/why-the-happy-meal-is-already-illegal/

http://www.yaleruddcenter.org/resources/upload/docs/what/law/FTCFoodMarketingTV_JLME_3.10.pdf

 

A company called Michael Foods has recalled more than one million hard-boiled eggs because of possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes.  These especially nasty bacteria grow happily at refrigerator temperatures.

Michael Foods packaged the eggs in buckets of brine at a facility in Wakefield, Nebraska.  Investigators suspect a room in the packaging plant as the most likely source of contamination.  Listeria do tend to lurk in wet crevices of packing plants.

The company’s recall notice says:

None of the eggs were sold directly by Michael Foods to retailers or consumers. However, food distributors and manufacturers who purchased the eggs could have used them in products that were sold to retail outlets or used in foodservice settings.

Think: commercially prepared egg salad sandwiches and potato salads.

If you can’t quite get how a million hard-cooked eggs could be exposed to Listeria, you have plenty of company, mine included.

Hard-boiled eggs are boiled.  They are sterile.  What could have happened?

I went to the Web to find out how eggs are processed for commercial use, and discovered the Sanovo Group.   This company produces machines that wash and peel hard-boiled eggs (check the video).

The company’s SB 20000 Egg Boiler, for example:

automatically boils, cools and peels up to 20,000 eggs/hour. It can handle both brown and white eggs [Huh?  Why would anyone expect a difference?]….The SB 20000 Egg Boiler centres the yolk on stainless steel rollers, improving the egg quality and yield. A uniform boiling of the eggs is obtained by the built-in conveyor working with up to 18 minutes boiling time.

The boiled eggs are cooled for 23 minutes in the SC 20000 Egg Cooler, improving the peeling of the eggs. Ice water is injected in the centre of the cooling drum for optimal cooling transmission to the egg.

The SP 20000 Egg Peeler gently cracks the eggshells. Using the hygienic and no-scratch peeling technique. The complete system is easily cleaned for optimal hygiene.

The contamination must have occurred after the eggs were peeled or while they were in the buckets.

To me, the mere thought of peeled, hard-cooked eggs sitting in pails of cold, Listeria-friendly salt water for who knows how long be should make anyone run for the nearest testing kit.

These egg recalls are a perfect example of the hazards of industrial-scale food production.

Support your local egg farmer and peel your own eggs!

This morning, Walmart announced a new FOP labeling program:

The logo will go on Walmart’s in-house brand products that meet the company’s nutritional criteria.  These criteria are similar (but not identical) to those recommended by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in its recent report advising the FDA about what should be included in front-of-package labels.

Because the FDA has not yet acted on the IOM report, Walmart—like other retailers—is jumping the gun in doing its own thing.  Its thing, however, is a substantial improvement over the Facts Up Front scheme put in place by the Grocery Manufacturers Association and Food Marketing Institute.

In general, strict nutrition criteria for salt, sugar, and saturated fat exclude most supermarket products.

Walmart’s criteria are pretty strict.  They exclude 80% of Great Value products.

In the cereal category, for example, only these Great Value items qualify:

• Extra Raisin Bran Cereal
• Raisin Bran
• Bran Flakes
• Crunchy Oat Squares
• Frosted Shredded Wheat
• Crunchy Nugget Cereal
• Toasted Wholegrain Oat Cereal

But these Great Value cereals do not:

• Cocoa Cool Cereal
• Cinnamon Crunchy Oat Squares Cereal
• Apple Blasts Cereal
• Sugar Frosted Flakes Cereal
• Toasted Corn Cereal
• Crisp Rice Cereal
• Fruit Spins Cereal
• Fruity Puffs Cereal
• Crunchy Honey Oats Cereal
• Vanilla Almond Awake Cereal

OK, but I wish the company had waited for the FDA to decide on a plan for FOP labeling (and I wish the FDA would get busy on that plan).

All of these schemes are ways to avoid putting negative information on package labels.  No seller or retailer wants a red traffic light—“don’t buy me”—on its products, especially because research shows that stop signals work.  Customers tend not to buy products marked with red traffic lights.

The IOM report concluded that negatives (“don’t buy”) worked better than positives (“buy me”) in guiding consumer choice.   A more recent study confirms that finding.

Companies much prefer green-light systems like the one Walmart is doing.

The Walmart press release explains:

Walmart moms are telling us they want to make healthier choices for their families, but need help deciphering all the claims and information already displayed on products…Our ‘Great For You’ icon provides customers with an easy way to quickly identify healthier food choices…this simple tool encourages families to have a healthier diet.

But does it?  Will Walmart customers buy more of the items marked with the logo instead of the other kinds?  The company says it is doing the research.  Will customers who buy products with the logo be healthier as a result?

I can’t wait to find out.

Addition, February 8: Here’s the way the New York Times dealt with this (I’m quoted).

On the occasion of the two-year anniversary of Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign, it’s time to reflect again on what the campaign means for the White House, for childhood obesity, and for the food movement.

A year later, I summarized some of the campaign’s accomplishments.  From the beginning, I’ve been impressed with its smart choice of targets: to reduce childhood obesity by improving school food and inner city access to healthy foods.

I’m reminded of the political savvy that went into the campaign by an editorial in The Nation (February 6), “America’s First Lady Blues.”  In it, Ilyse Hogue writes about Michelle Obama’s careful treading of the fine line between marital independence and submission, using Let’s Move! as an example.

Hogue praises Mrs. Obama’s choice of a target that looks “soft,” but is anything but:

In an effort to fit Michelle’s role into a traditional profile, the media constantly reminds us that her work is on presumably soft subjects, primarily her hallmark cause to end childhood obesity…Slurs aside, what critics miss is that this campaign is not aimed at soft targets.

The food and beverage industry is a powerful lobbying force, spending nearly $16.3 million in the 2008 cycle to defeat initiatives—like a “soda tax” and limits on aggressive advertising aimed at kids—that would encourage a healthier diet and thus cut into its massive profits.

To tackle childhood obesity, we’ll have to confront complicated issues of race, class, entrenched corporate power, and access to healthy food.

Indeed we will.  Childhood obesity is a focal point for issues of social justice.

Happy birthday Let’s Move!  And many more.

So many comments came in to my blog post on Paula Deen’s diabetes announcement, “weighing in on Paula Deen,” that I thought it was worth revisiting in my monthly (first Sunday) column in the San Francisco Chronicle.  The question (edited) came from a blog reader:

Q: I have been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and am very confused about insulin resistance, and what carbohydrates I can and cannot eat. So much of what I read is contradictory.

A: The first line of defense against type 2 diabetes is weight loss, but you would never know it from listening to Paula Deen, the celebrity Southern cook who recently announced that she has this disease, or even to the American Diabetes Association.

Having diabetes is no joke. It is a leading cause of blindness, kidney failure, leg and foot amputations, and premature death.

The disease comes in two forms – type 1 and type 2 – but type 2 accounts for 95 percent of cases. In both, levels of blood sugar are too high as a result of problems with insulin, a hormone that enables the body to use blood sugar for energy. But the reasons differ.

Type 1 is an autoimmune disease. It causes the pancreas to stop making insulin or not make enough. Type 1 is not yet preventable and requires insulin treatment.

In type 2, insulin may be available, but body tissues resist its use.

Being overweight is the key factor in type 2. Most people can prevent it by not gaining weight. And most people with the type 2 disease can eliminate symptoms by losing some weight.

Genetics is certainly a factor – many overweight people never develop the disease – but 85 percent or more of people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes are overweight or obese.

In genetically predisposed people, being overweight causes insulin resistance. Metabolism does not handle excess calories very well, and this means calories from any source, not just carbohydrates.

Fast food, soft drinks

Children and adults who habitually consume fast food as well as soft drinks tend to take in more calories and weigh more and are more likely to develop symptoms than people who eat healthier diets and are more active.

This makes healthy eating and physical activity the most important approaches. The vast majority of overweight people at risk of type 2 diabetes can prevent symptoms by losing a few percent of their body weight and doing a couple of hours a week of moderate – not necessarily vigorous – physical activity. The same works for treatment. Some people will still need medications, but the drugs work better with diet and physical activity.

As the Centers for Disease Control puts it, “all diabetes-care programs should make healthy weight a priority.”

Dietary advice for type 2 diabetes is the same as advice for everyone else: Eat a wide variety of relatively unprocessed foods, especially vegetables, fruits and whole grains, and don’t consume too much junk food or too many sugary beverages.

Scientists may argue endlessly about the relative importance of calories, sugars and refined carbohydrates in the diets of people with type 2 diabetes, but everyone agrees that eating less of all three would help resolve symptoms.

Why isn’t weight loss better recognized as a treatment strategy? Paula Deen’s announcement said nothing about losing weight.

The ADA does talk about weight loss on its website ( www.diabetes.org), but you must search hard through several complicated screens before you find, “Losing just a few pounds through exercise and eating well can help with your diabetes control and can reduce your risk for other health problems.”

Pharmaceuticals

I can’t help wondering if the lack of prominence given to weight loss might have something to do with the influence of pharmaceutical companies.

A few years ago, I gave a talk on the importance of weight loss in control of type 2 diabetes at an ADA annual meeting. Although many conference talks dealt with drug treatment, mine was the only one on diet – except for a session on sugars sponsored by Coca-Cola.

The exhibit hall was packed with drug company representatives dispensing free pens, writing pads, books, lab coats and stethoscopes – all with corporate logos.

The influence of drug companies on diabetes advice is worth attention. Deen represents a drug that costs hundreds of dollars a month. Drug companies give the ADA millions every year.

Eating less and being active make no money for anyone (unless people can be induced to join commercial weight-loss programs).

Losing weight is a losing battle for many people. It’s hard to lose weight in today’s “eat more” food marketing environment.

Teachable moment

But a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes should be a teachable moment. Shouldn’t the ADA more strongly urge people with the disease to eat less, eat better and move more, and help everyone find ways to cope with “eat more” messages?

The health and economic costs of type 2 diabetes, and its preventability, are reason enough to demand changes in the food environment. The ADA should be working hard to make it easier for everyone to eat more healthfully, be more active and avoid the need for a lifetime of diabetes medications.

Marion Nestle is the author of “Food Politics” and “What to Eat,” among other books, and is a professor in the nutrition, food studies and public health department at New York University. She blogs at www.foodpolitics.com. E-mail comments to food@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page G – 4 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University, London, writes that the U.K. food industry is fighting back over initiatives to reduce calories and mitigate climate change.

He sends an article from the British trade publication, The Grocer, about how the U.K. government has reneged on its “responsibility deal” with industry to reduce calories in food products. 

The idea was to demand that food companies reformulate products, control portion size, and take “action to shift to lower calorie options.”

But now, in response to industry protests,  the U.K. Department of Health is simply inviting food companies to help in the development of calorie-reduction policies.

To this invitation to the fox to guard the chickens, professor Lang comments:

Those of us following the currently fashionable ‘nudge’ theory and other ‘Food Policy lite’ initiatives will note this leak about softening the Responsibility Deal on calorie reduction here in England with concern…Perish the thought that sections of the Food Industry might have lobbied hard to stop any efforts to reduce portion size. Perish, indeed.

Another article in The Grocer points out that Tesco, Britain’s leading food retailer, is pulling out of an agreement to put carbon labels on products becausedoing so is too much trouble.

Professor Lang writes:

Here is the world’s 3^rd largest food retailer, Tesco, apparently saying that the carbon label (a weak system for changing behaviour in the first place, perhaps) takes too much time. Well, well, well.

If this is true…the implications are considerable, not least for the planet, given that a third of European (i.e., rich consumers) greenhouse gas emissions are due to food.

He gives as sources for that statement:

• Tukker, A., et al., Environmental Impacts of Diet Changes in the EU. 2009, European Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies: Seville.
• Tukker, A., et al., Environmental Impact of Products (EIPRO): Analysis of the life cycle environmental impacts related to the final consumption of the EU-25. EUR 22284 EN. 2006, European Commission Joint Research Centre.: Brussels.
• Audsley, E., et al., How Low Can We Go? An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050 2010, FCRN and WWF: Godalming, Surrey.

So much for voluntary actions by industry.  Regulation anyone?

 This just in: The European Commission issued a statement of regret that the European Parliament vetoed its proposal to allow “percent less” health claims on food packages yesterday.  These are statements that a product contains 15% less sugar, for example.

The Commission thinks such claims will encourage reformulation of food products.  The Parliament believes that such claims are misleading and will promote sales of junk foods. 

Which is right? Who knows?

Nature, the prestigious science magazine from Great Britain, has just published a commentary with a provocative title–The toxic truth about sugar—and an even more provocative subtitle: Added sweeteners pose dangers to health that justify controlling them like alcohol.

The authors, Robert Lustig, Laura Schmidt and Claire Brindis, are researchers at the University of California medical center in San Francisco (UCSF).

They argue that although tobacco, alcohol and diet are critically important behavioral risk factors in chronic disease, only two of them—tobacco and alcohol—are regulated by governments to protect public health.

Now, they say, it’s time to regulate sugar.  By sugar, they mean sugars plural: sucrose as well as high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).  Both are about half fructose.

Their rationale?

• Consumption of sugars has tripled over the last 50 years.
• Many people consume as much as 500 calories a day from sugars (average per capita availability in the U.S. is about 400 calories a day)
• High intake of fructose-containing sugars induce metabolic syndrome (high blood pressure, insulin resistance), diabetes, and liver damage.
• Sugars have the potential for abuse.
• Sugars have negative effects on society (mediated via obesity).
• Too much of a good thing can be toxic.

Therefore, they argue, societies should intervene and consider the kinds of policies that have proven effective for control of tobacco and alcohol:

• Taxes
• Distribution controls
• Age limits
• Bans from schools
• Licensing requirements
• Zoning ordinances
• Bans on TV commercials
• Labeling added sugars
• Removal of fructose from GRAS status

In a statement that greatly underestimates the situation, they say:

We recognize that societal interven­tion to reduce the supply and demand for sugar faces an uphill political battle against a powerful sugar lobby, and will require active engagement from all stakeholders.

But, they conclude:

These simple measures — which have all been on the battleground of American politics — are now taken for granted as essential tools for our public health and well-being. It’s time to turn our attention to sugar.

What is one to make of this?  Sugar is a delight, nobody is worried about the fructose in fruit or carrots, and diets can be plenty healthy with a little sugar sprinkled here and there.

The issue is quantity.  Sugars are not a problem, or not nearly as much of a problem, for people who balance calorie intake with expenditure.

Scientists can argue endlessly about whether obesity is a cause or an effect of metabolic dysfunction, but most people would be healthier if they ate less sugar.

The bottom line?  As Corinna Hawkes, the author of numerous reports on worldwide food marketing, wrote me this morning, “there are plenty of reasons for people to consume less sugar without having to worry about whether it’s toxic or not!”