It's so NOT the real thing...

by Marlene Schwartz

Last night I saw a commercial for a new product called Diet Coke Plus. I'd somehow missed the news that this was coming, so it took me quite by surprise to see that Coke is now fortifying its product with vitamins and minerals.  I was so surprised, in fact, that I blurted out, "You have got to be kidding," and my children turned to me and asked what was wrong.

Why did I have such a big reaction?  Let me try to explain.

Sometimes I wish we could go back to the good old days when junk food looked like junk food, healthy food looked like healthy food, and there wasn't a whole lot of confusion.  What we've seen in the past few years is a serious effort on the part of the food, beverage, and restaurant industries to convince consumers that they can eat what they've always eaten, and be healthy too. McDonald's insists you can go there and get a well balanced, nutritious meal.  General Mills, Kellogg's, and Post have put signs all over their boxes showing that sugared cereals really aren't that bad (they are whole grain, low fat, and are fortified with lots of vitamins and minerals, and don't forget - have no cholesterol and provide lots of energy).

And, now, Diet Coke wants you to think that it isn't just an indulgence, but can actually contribute something positive to your diet.

Why are they doing this?  One reason may be to create a "halo effect;" improving the image of products that are typically criticized, which should help make people like me shut up.

Another reason may be to make current customers feel better about their choices.  Perhaps there are mothers out there who already buy Cocoa Puffs for their children but feel guilty, so now they can buy the same product and not feel so badly.  This might be analogous to low-tar cigarettes - changing a product enough to make people think it isn't so bad, and thus keeping customers who might otherwise stop using the product altogether.

And a third reason is the hope that people who are conscious of their health will actually start buying those products for the first time. Here's where I think these companies have made a mistake.  If I never bought Frosted Flakes for my children, I am not going to start buying it because now it supposedly is healthier because it is lower in sugar.  If I never drank Diet Coke because I think it isn't a health promoting beverage, I am certainly not going to start because it now has vitamins and minerals added to it.

I'd almost respect these companies more if they stopped pretending to be something they are not.  Look at Godiva chocolate.  I went to their website and typed it "health" and "nutrition" in the search and got "Sorry, your search yielded no matches."  Thank goodness!  Godiva makes a product that is high in fat, sugar, and calories.  But, to their credit, it comes in very small servings, they market it as a luxury item, and they aren't out there lobbying to be sold in schools, or convince people they provide a good snack. They even aren't screaming that their product can be eaten in moderation and is part of a healthy
balanced diet as long as you get plenty of exercise.

They make candy.  They aren't apologizing, but they also aren't pretending it's health food or marketing it to children.  You've got to respect that.

Comments

[Shefaly]

Marlene, interesting and I think someone here has written about this before.

I see a couple things:
1. The stated strategic aim of Coke is to be the purveyor of the beverage of choice, whether orange juice or cola drinks. To this extent, they have a range of products on offer which is being extended to thwart criticism for being mostly junk food.

2. The definition of junk food is weird and needs addressing. In our enthusiasm to ban food ads to children, now advertising cheese is disallowed but fruit drinks (not juice, fruit drinks which are some 5-10% fruit concentrate with sugar and other rubbish) can be advertised. This grey zone of legality allows Diet Coke Plus and its ilk to survive and make claims of the kind they are making. So food policy makers actually enable this to happen...

3. On your third argument, I agree. I do not buy or drink Coke or any such product I regard as nutrition-free calories. This product or any such is hardly going to find space in my fridge just because they say it is better than 100% crap...

Thanks for sharing this.

[Mara]

"Coke is now fortifying its product with vitamins and minerals."

Fine, let them. People who drink diet soda such as myself might feel better about it; at the very least, we won't feel worse. (I don't swill the stuff down, but I do enjoy it in moderation).
Kids are the ones who need to be educated about it. That is, don't think that because it has vitamins and whatnot it's as healthy for you as milk, water or real juice. Beyond this, I have a reaction of: "big deal". I guess I should be more outraged, to go by the blogger's tone, but I find it hard to rouse up much ire about the dastardly ways of diet coke.

"McDonald's insists you can go there and get a well balanced, nutritious meal."

Actually, McD's chicken salads are pretty good. The veggies are fresh, the chicken can be ordered not fried and the dressing is on the side. I like these salads and if I'm in the mood for McD's, why shouldn't I have the choice of a nice salad instead of only a burger and fries meal? If Morgan Spurlock had chosen the salads more often, maybe we wouldn't have had to be "treated" to him upchucking after his upteenth Big Mac.

"General Mills, Kellogg's, and Post have put signs all over their boxes showing that sugared cereals really aren't that bad (they are whole grain, low fat, and are fortified with lots of vitamins and minerals, and don't forget - have no cholesterol and provide lots of energy)."

I see your point, but I think that whole-grain Cheereos, while still not the perfect health food is better than Coca Puffs. Let's not group these cereals completely together.

"And, now, Diet Coke wants you to think that it isn't just an indulgence, but can actually contribute something positive to your diet."

Well, it's better than a box of Twinkies, isn't it? Better than a cake or a whole pizza? And better than those fake fruit juices. I suppose the vitamins might help. I've no idea. I think Americans put too much stock in vitamins anyway (although I dutifully take my own every morning. I suppose the placebo effect might come into play, which can't be a *bad thing*. Although, with myself, I'm probably also having to deal with the *nocebo* effect too, darn it).

"Why are they doing this? One reason may be to create a "halo effect;" improving the image of products that are typically criticized, which should help make people like me shut up."

Hmmm, I guess that won't happen.

I think most people know diet soda is not a great choice, but it allows one to enjoy something cold and fizzy and sweet-tasting without all the sugar of the regular stuff. I know many say the artifical sweeteners are bad, but hey: at least you can read great books about them. Check out "Sweet and Low, a Family Story" by Rich Cohen. It's a very interesting read.

Can't people lighten up a little in their *attitudes* about food? I hate having to be made I should feel guilty for everything I eat unless it's:

-chicken *w/o skin*!!!!
-veggies w/no fattening dressings
-fruit
-water
-*low or non-fat* dairy!!!

Enough! People have to live and eat in the real world. Not all of us can be angels about what we eat, but we try not to be complete devils either. Jeez.

"Another reason may be to make current customers feel better about their choices."

As opposed to you making us feel worse? Thanks. Thankyou so much. I never do well when I feel worse about what I eat, no matter What I eat.

"This might be analogous to low-tar cigarettes - changing a product enough to make people think it isn't so bad, and thus keeping customers who might otherwise stop using the product altogether."

Black and white thinking on your part. So either the person gives up the ciggies completely or they smoke the fully toxic-filled thing? What if the low-tar choice helps someone not get as ill from the ciggs as they would otherwise?

Fortunately, I have never smoked, thank god, But if I did and I wanted to stop, I might transition to some low tar brand before I stopped completely.

"They even aren't screaming that their product can be eaten in moderation and is part of a healthy
balanced diet as long as you get plenty of exercise."

So, this is not true? I thought chocolate had some good properties to it? (Except it has to be that wretched dark stuff, unfortunately). Oh well. You are the one screaming, actually. And you make it worse for those of us who are trying to do what we can do.

"They make candy. They aren't apologizing, but they also aren't pretending it's health food or marketing it to children. You've got to respect that."

You can respect it and I'll just eat it when I feel like indulging. I don't need to respect my candy, I just need to enjoy it, thank you very much!

Bottom line: it may not be great, but it's not horrible either to add vitamins to diet coke. Let's be less shrill about all this; it just contributes to people feeling like they must either eat in a totally "pure" way (Whatever the hell That truly is) or they are doomed.

I am dismayed by how everyone has become such "purists" about food. It is the flip side to the junk food eaters, if you ask me. It's America today: Crazy for Junk/Crazy for Purity.
What happened to just eating for pleasure beyond all this "fuel". We are not cars or machines although our bodies operate like them. But our minds and our souls do not.

Food is to America today as what Sex was to the Victorians. Whore/Madonna. Good/Bad. Not middle ground. Has anyone noticed this here at Rudd Sound Bites???

[rfry]

Shafely said: "I do not buy or drink Coke or any such product I regard as nutrition-free calories."

I know you reference Coke here, but there's a distinction to be made here between Coke and Diet Coke.

And here's the thing about Diet Coke: it's got no calories. It may not have any nutrition, either, and it may be a diuretic, leading to having less water than you started with, but you can't knock it for being empty calories. It's completely hollow.

And Mara is right: refusing to see the difference between full-calorie sodas, full of their loathed high-fructose corn syrup, and no-calorie sodas is ridiculous.

[Mara]

Actually, Richard, I happen to like Diet Pepsi much more than Diet Coke. Especially with a shot of lemon juice and and/or squeezed lime floating in it with plenty of ice. Tell me that's not a divine summer drink! (Yes, I drink plenty of water, too). Especially Seltzer water. Love that fizz!

[Shefaly]

Calories or no calories, I do not think buying anything that is more than sweet water for £1/ can (yes, that is what we pay for it in the UK, I do not, but those, who like to drink it, do) is very wise. I can make my own sugared/ sugar substitute but sweet drink for nearly zero cost. :-)

No calories do not make the Diet drink any more virtuous...

[Mara]

"I can make my own sugared/ sugar substitute but sweet drink for nearly zero cost. :-)

No calories do not make the Diet drink any more virtuous..."

Eh, more "virtuous" than what, Shefaly? A cheaper drink? A healthier drink?

I think it's kinda hard to get too riled about diet soda, don't you? I gave it a go, but, unlike debating the CRONIES, I am feeling a bit....deflated.

Like soda left out for too long.

But let's see if someone other than the original blogger can attack diet drinks as if they are the work of satan. Maybe then I can reinspire myself to work up some more righteous indignation.

(It's interesting, isn't it, how easy it is to talk about food in religious terms: "sinful", "virtous", "bad", "good", and so forth).

[Mara]

I must admit, though, that putting vitamins and minerals into diet soda is a pretty lame-brained idea.

I mean, I guess it can't hurt - or probably help much.

It's kind of funny, really.

[Shefaly]

Mara, I am a non-native English speaker, born into the ancient religious and social philosophy of Hinduism, where all religious texts are largely in Sanskrit and some are in Brahmi and Pali, languages that do not exist anymore. I am an atheist by and large, except for the occasional use of the word 'God' when I really want to scream at something without being rude.

The words you quote may have religious import for you, but to me, they are really sounds made in the English language in a social and communicative context, and nothing more.

[Mara]

"I am an atheist by and large, except for the occasional use of the word 'God' when I really want to scream at something without being rude."

Well, I think ideas of "sin" and "purity" are ones that can be and are *easily projected* onto food and the body by everyone involved in trying to figure out the "right" foods to eat.

And if you do use those terms in pseudo-religous definitions as, I think, we all do to one degree or another, than perhaps it is not an entirely conscious decison on your part.

After all, you say you live in England and England is similar to America in the tone that is being employed by just about everyone regarding the obesity crisis. I would be very surprised if you were *not* affected by this tone of condemnation simply because you do not believe in god.

Of course, it does not matter what your or my personal beliefs about a deity may be, actually. And it does not matter that you were not born into a Christian backround at all.

I was making an observation based on how you used a certain term: "virtue" to describe diet soda.

The point stands, that certain food are often demonized, regardless of your possibly alternate meaning of this word "virtue".

I think certain foods of the modern age, coupled with the historically rather recent, extreme stigmatization of the obese body show that a new battleground for ideas of "sin" and "redemption" are at play in all of us.

For myself, I do not see diet soda as a great drink - or as an "evil" (ie: "bad") one, necessarily either.

Yet the tone employed by Marlene Schwartz is bordering on moral outrage (ie: how Dare they)!?!

And you talk of "virtue". It all fits.

[Jeremy]

Mara, it is clear to me at the least that you are naive and have a superficial knowledge of the field of nutrition and recent developments in the science. I don't usually direct my comments here to people personally but since you act like a know-it-all when you are actually quite naive, I believe it is fair game.

Your arguments are taken out of the playbook of corporate executives of individuals in the food industry. If you stop to think about what you say you will realize that what you are saying has nothing to do with what Marlene has discussed.

Marlene's point is well taken. She said emphatically that she would have more respect for a company who was selling junk food that did not market it as health food. This goes in line with your philosophy of "Let me enjoy what I eat." People who want to keep it real, want to eat a chocolate bar without the lies of health claims.

First off, there is no conclusive evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer; however there is some evidence that diet sodas do actually cause weight gain by causing invidiuals to consume more food. Artificial sweeteners have been shown in rodent studies to cause an increase in caloric intake. Some human epidemiological evidence demonstrates at the least, it does nothing for weight loss and it may cause people to actually crave sweets later on in the day. The evidence is far from conclusive but this is an area that begs for further research considering Americans consume millions of dollars worth of artificial sweeteners every HOUR!

Then combine this knowledge with the knowledge that Americans, in general, are not deficient in vitamins and the fact that anti-oxidants have not been demonstrated to reduce the incidence or prevelance of cancer and heart disease and you clearly can understand Marlene's point about the vitamins.

This argument can be made for sugared cereals, cereal bars, other drinks, chocolate bars, etc. Companies are adding vitamins or herbs or Green tea to unhealthy products to fool people into thinking they are eating something that is: "not so bad for me."

Marlene's point about the cereal is that the whole grain moniker has made its way to super sweet cereals such as all GENERAL MILLS cereals like Trix and Lucky Charms. OBVIOUSLY she is not discussing Cheerios. If you had a more than superficial knowledge of nutrition and obesity, you would realize that.

Your last comment on salads shows either naivete or your libertarian views. The salad at McDonalds have been offered for four years now. Very few people choose these salads - you would say it is their fault. Experts and rationale people say things like, "well the salad costs 4.99 when a burger is .99 cents" or something similar. Or they consider the fact that red meat is subsidized while vegetables are not. As I stated before, if your knowledge was not so superficial you would understand these concepts.

You are discussing a complicated issue with experts in the field. You are free to discuss here or anywhere for that matter and can make comments that oppose what we believe or say, but before you attack with that know it all tone, you better research the field more.

[Mara]

Jeremy,
I will address your points:

"Mara, it is clear to me at the least that you are naive and have a superficial knowledge of the field of nutrition and recent developments in the science."

Given that the "science" of nutrition is often extremely contradictory, I think I have enough knowledge of it to make a few points based on my own experiences and readings, which I have done with Dr. Schwartz's column.

"I don't usually direct my comments here to people personally but since you act like a know-it-all when you are actually quite naive, I believe it is fair game."

You sound quite offended by my tone. Well, I think you sound exactly like what you dislike in me. Can you not see the irony here?

"Your arguments are taken out of the playbook of corporate executives of individuals in the food industry."

Because I am "pushing" diet soda? Not in the least! I drink it in moderation and it works for me. I am sure I am not the only one, either. Marlene Schwartz is too damning in her approach to diet soda, even if it Is silly for it to now have vitamins.

"If you stop to think about what you say you will realize that what you are saying has nothing to do with what Marlene has discussed."

I disagree. I did with Marlene's post exactly what I am doing with yours, addressing relevant points with my views. I do not think one must be a scientist to do this and I do not think, as I've pointed out, that nutrition is on stable ground in many respects anyway.

Certainly, when one hears of things like eggs being bad, then good and all that, it's valid to question and challenge things - for Everyone.

"Marlene's point is well taken. She said emphatically that she would have more respect for a company who was selling junk food that did not market it as health food."

Yet Marlene also criticized low-tar cigarettes and I think I gave excellent examples of why such cigarettes might be useful in some ways (such as for those trying to quit).

Likewise, diet soda can be useful for those who don't want all the calories of regular-sugar soda.

"This goes in line with your philosophy of "Let me enjoy what I eat." People who want to keep it real, want to eat a chocolate bar without the lies of health claims."

I do not mind the health claims if they can be reasonably supported. I think they also help us see that many more foods than we thought can be enjoyed and also benefit one's health to some real degree.

"First off, there is no conclusive evidence that artificial sweeteners cause cancer; however there is some evidence that diet sodas do actually cause weight gain by causing invidiuals to consume more food."

I do not think this is inherent in the soda itself, it's probably psychological; people might rationalize that they can have much more food because they drink diet soda, perhaps.

"Artificial sweeteners have been shown in rodent studies to cause an increase in caloric intake."

Rodents, again. Hmmm, mice seem to rule. Fair enough, but I wonder how much soda was pumped into the little things, for instance? How much soda are we talking about and are we talking diet soda? Those are just some questions I have. But I do not dwell on this endlessly.

I think the theory is that you Must pay for it if you eat "bad" food. So diet soda is going to come under special fire for some.

"Some human epidemiological evidence demonstrates at the least, it does nothing for weight loss"

Well, it has to be better than drinking full sugar soda, which is known to cause weight gain. I think this, alone, might well aid in weight loss or at least to help in stabilizing weight.

"and it may cause people to actually crave sweets later on in the day."

I do not find this is true for myself. I find the sweetness of diet soda an acceptable replacement for the many, very fattening sweets I could be having instead. With diet soda I can "appease" some of my sweeth tooth in a way acceptable to me. I like water, coffee and seltzer water too, not just diet soda.

"The evidence is far from conclusive but this is an area that begs for further research considering Americans consume millions of dollars worth of artificial sweeteners every HOUR!"

Yes, I am sure more research couldn't hurt, but also might not prove much either. There have already been so many contradictory claims about both the health And danger of artificial sweetners.

"Then combine this knowledge with the knowledge that Americans, in general, are not deficient in vitamins and the fact that anti-oxidants have not been demonstrated to reduce the incidence or prevelance of cancer and heart disease and you clearly can understand Marlene's point about the vitamins."

I think your claims about vitamins and anti-oxidants are Not supported by all, especially the former claim.

****An important point to consider: this Drive to eat foods as pure and healthy as possible may very well be aiding manufactorers in manipulating us into swilling vitamin-diet soda. If we could settle down a bit and just try to eat fairly well (and not perfect) than we might not be so vulnerable if the food industry decides to add vitamins to cotton candy, say. I know I won't.****

"This argument can be made for sugared cereals, cereal bars, other drinks, chocolate bars, etc. Companies are adding vitamins or herbs or Green tea to unhealthy products to fool people into thinking they are eating something that is: "not so bad for me."

All things in moderation, I always say - and try to do. Thinking: "this is bad for me" can also, oddly enough, make a person feel more hopeless about their ability to eat well. It's best not to anguish over what you eat, I feel.

Like I said, you don't have to eat "perfectly" to eat well.

"Marlene's point about the cereal is that the whole grain moniker has made its way to super sweet cereals such as all GENERAL MILLS cereals like Trix and Lucky Charms. OBVIOUSLY she is not discussing Cheerios. If you had a more than superficial knowledge of nutrition and obesity, you would realize that."

"Obviously"? Well, I think she grouped everything under "cereal" and I made the point that some of these cereals are Not so bad.

Whole-grain, low-fat and sugar Cheerios are not the same as Coco Puffs (the cereal she Did mention). Maybe Cheerios are not great, but they are not as bad as Coco Puffs.

"Your last comment on salads shows either naivete or your libertarian views."

Oh, that's interesting. I can also make comments on meat that might show you that I'm a Democrat and you might think my words on carbs will show some revolutionary tendencies.

Maybe this is a vital new area to research, itself: opinions on food and how they correlate to political views.

"The salad at McDonalds have been offered for four years now. Very few people choose these salads - you would say it is their fault. Experts and rationale people say things like, "well the salad costs 4.99 when a burger is .99 cents" or something similar. Or they consider the fact that red meat is subsidized while vegetables are not. As I stated before, if your knowledge was not so superficial you would understand these concepts."

Well, on occasionI buy and eat those salads, they are pretty good in many ways - and I can't be the only one eating them, either!

I truly doubt McD's thought the salads would outsell the Bic Macs but they are still valid options to chose from if you have a meal there. You Don't only have to have the fries, burgers and shakes anymore.

"You are discussing a complicated issue with experts in the field. You are free to discuss here or anywhere for that matter and can make comments that oppose what we believe or say, but before you attack with that know it all tone, you better research the field more."

Am I going to be banned from Rudd Sound Bites for being too "uppity"? Or too naive? I don't see that I've attacked Marlene Schwartz either. I have not called her names, for instance. I have only strongly disagreed with her.

Frankly, I think I've made some excellent points and you simply disagree with them and want to keep me in line by telling me how "know-it-all" I am, (except I'm really "naive", in your opinion).

Okay, I certainly get that you think I'm naive.

Now, from my perspective, you quite Clearly have a need to try to put me in my place for reasons that probably go well beyond what we are discussing here re: diet soda and nutrition.

I happen to like Rudd Sound Bites, I enjoy commenting on the columns and I think I do a pretty good job, whether or not people agree with me.

I try to give much thought and insight to what I say and I think I come from all this with a perspective very valuable

Because -

I am not an "expert", but rather, a normal person in the real world living my life.

If Rudd Sound bites only wants to hear from the "experts" (and be self-congratulatory about their views that simply reinforce each other's take on things) than you make alot of sense.

However, I do not think you have valid criticisms of what I have said.

[Aaron]

I, for one, am tired of food snobbery. It has gotten to the point of being ridiculous. Eat what you like, don't eat what you don't like, but to devote as much time as we do to food is so sad. Why some people may be insulted by what other people eat is beyond my comprehension.