Food Politics

I love how people these days need a purpose, other than their direct consumption and enjoyment of a product, to make them feel good and help them justify buying something they probably don’t need.

I believe somewhere in these companies running these campaigns, there may be a few people who believe in a cause, and they try to bring the rest of the company on board for these “we’ll donate 0.000000001% of your purchase to research”, but it all just gets twisted and tainted when it goes out as part of a marketing campaign to buy more of their premium-priced products. I always think that if a corporation really cares (which they can’t because they’re not a true soulful entity), it and its shareholders could collectively donate, lots and lots of money to whatever cause(s) they like – way more money than the fractions of a cent per purchase that goes to Breast Cancer Research, etc. when someone purchases a drink/yogurt/bag of chips/TV…

I think these kind of marketing campaigns are losing steam. When every product has some kind of connection to breast cancer/water relief/end hunger/homelessness, etc, you eventually stop paying attention. Rather than doing good, I think these campaigns are more about a CEO being able to stand in front of the camera/news reporter/employees/shareholders, and talk about how much ‘good’ they did by participating in some buy/donate foundation. It’s all part of the whole corporate social responsibility paradox.

The idea that you are ending Breast cancer one drink/coffee/doughnut/burger is just ludicrous. You’d do better saving that money and donating it directly…

[...] View full post upon US – Google Blog Search [...]

It’s no different than the NFL involvement in that cause and childhood obesity. I’ve been documenting the commercials that appear on NFL broadcasts … it’s comical!

Take a peak … http://bit.ly/4QikjZ

There’s a woman with recurring breast cancer who blogs quite regularly about how exploitative all this pink marketing is (especially food companies). Her thread on the topic is here:
http://www.assertivepatient.com/boycott_october/

Quite shocking, thanks for the info. I actually did not know breast cancer was related to alcohol.

Jezebel took this up today in a different way, talking about the ‘sexy’ Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns. I mean, at a certain point, I feel that they are seemingly simply an attempt to make those around you aware that YOU are aware so that somewhere down the line you get a pat on the back. For what? Buying booze? Updating your Facebook status? Just strange activism if you ask me.

Jezebel:
http://tinyurl.com/22ow5jt

for them one has nothing to do with the other… they know people see pink and feel good and want to buy their product over others… we as consumers are not good at making the connections between these and these companies (as well as others) know this and take full advantage of it.

It’s like those horribly misguided pink KFC buckets…

[...] Food Politics [...]

Personally, I try NOT to support the pink ribbon. It’s seems that breast cancer tends to get an inordinate amount of media attention (over other forms of cancer). What’s with the fixation on the girls? My take on it: sex sells. For the products in this blogpost, men like alcohol, and men like boobs, so things like “save the boobs!” will get more alcohol sold, under the guise of “doing good.”

I know that’s a generalization, I know not all men are so shallow, but from the standpoint of a company that has something to sell and a profit to make, this is a great avenue to explore: appeal to what works (sex sells) and make people think they are doing good.

You just don’t see the same amount of effort for lung cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, etc.. Those just aren’t sexy enough to increase profits.

Thanks, Marion, for an excellent post.

I work at Marin Institute, an alcohol industry watchdog group. (The USA Today reporter contacted us.) We have the Mike’s Hard Lemonade pink ribbon bottles in our office. This product is especially appealing to young women because it’s so sweet. And all signs are that girls are catching up to boys in underage drinking. The CDC just came out with new data showing that 25% of teens and young adults binge drink, so this is a huge problem.

The connection of alcohol to breast cancer gets clearer all the time. One study showed an increase risk even at the recommended level of one drink per day, for a a variety of cancers in women. (Women are more vulnerable to alcohol harm then men.) Since working at Marin Institute, I’ve become more aware of my own intake.

I highly recommend Breast Cancer Action’s site, Think Before You Pink. My colleague wrote a blog post for them on alcohol pinkwashing: http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?p=1158

Sorry, here is the correct link to the alcohol / pinkwashing post!
http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/?p=1113

Theoretically, cures for cancers could be devised that makes dietary risk factors irrelevant. This seems like a great reason for food companies to support cures removing any implication of dietary choices and disease.

Let’s take polio:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/06/technology/06stats.html?scp=1&sq=polio%20diet&st=cse

“For example, in the late 1940s, before there was a polio vaccine, public health experts in America noted that polio cases increased in step with the consumption of ice cream and soft drinks, according to David Alan Grier, a historian and statistician at George Washington University. Eliminating such treats was even recommended as part of an anti-polio diet. It turned out that polio outbreaks were most common in the hot months of summer, when people naturally ate more ice cream, showing only an association, Mr. Grier said.”

Now we just get vaccinated.

Want to sell more wheat? Develop a vaccine for celiac.

Want to sell more milk? Develop a pill or vaccine for lactose intolerance.

Want to sell more cigarettes? Develop a cure for lung cancer.

Want to sell more junk food? Develop a cure for obesity and associated metabolic syndrome so people can more or less eat whatever they want to and not worry about gaining weight or progressing disease. We do this already with cholesterol lowering drugs, hypertension drugs, type II diabetes control medications, and even Viagra, because we know that these are largely diseases that develop through accumulated lifestyle choices.

Want to sell more automobiles so that people can continue engaging in diving them, an activity associated with high risk factor for early cause of death, develop seat belts and airbags?

There certainly is a logic behind it.

Good or bad? I don’t know. I have mixed feelings. In the polio example a vaccine certainly made diet irrelevant and I don’t think we can just look back with 20/20 hindsight and say “Oh, well of course the diet approach was misguided.” Try to image living in a time where there was no cure and a dietary approach probably wouldn’t seem so far fetched.

Actually it makes total sense. When we have a cure for cancer, these companies can continue to make produces that cause cancer, because it becomes just another treatable disease.

If we are unable to cure cancer, then the next logical step is to remove the causes of cancer which are in large part the products may of these big companies are producing.

I so agree with all of that. so we have a little diffrent twist on helping we invite woman with cancer and give them a spa day free of charge. we make friends and learn about each other….. lets people forget about their illness for a day and we( the therapists) feel good. what you all think????

Not only is alcohol a cause of breast cancer, but the national favorite, beer, is a source of phytoestrogens, which can be good or bad for breast cancer, depending on the study. And the favorite for women, distilled spirits mixed with juice, does offer some tiny amounts of fruit (nowhere near a serving, and it is juice), to be fair, but it also offers a lot of alcohol, and a lot of calories. Those mixed drinks add up.