Two stories in this month’s news should catch the attention of those who seek a healthier life. One reflects new government guidelines that may reflect environmental costs; the other features market strategy designed to sell more soda, maybe to those who have sworn off sugary drinks.
First is a report by a panel that advises the Agriculture Department every five years. Their last missive was responsible for the My Plate icon of 2010 that replaced the long running Food Pyramid, a design that was apparently misunderstood (or ignored) by average consumers.
The proposed guidelines for a healthy lifestyle reflect a bias toward fruit and vegetables, nuts, seeds and whole grains, as did My Plate. However, this time the panel is hoping to include costs to the environment of raising beef, not just results of scientific studies linking consumption of red meat to adverse health conditions.
Of course, beef producers are crying foul over the possible mention of environmental impacts in what has traditionally been limited to weight control and general health issues.
According to an Associated Press report by Mary Clare Jalonick, a draft recommendation by the advisory panel says a dietary pattern higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is “more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet.”
As one might imagine, the response from beef industry groups was swift and devastating. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association released a statement calling the committee biased and the meat recommendation “absurd.”
The panel’s current guidelines approve “lean meats” but a draft report from its meeting last month says a healthy dietary pattern includes “fewer red and processed meats.” Even though scientific studies have shown a link between processed meats and certain cancers for many years, and heavy consumption of red meat to heart disease, their mention in new guidelines is a threat to beef producers.
According to the A.P. report, Congress has weighed in warning Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack “to only include nutrition and dietary information, not extraneous factors” in final guidelines. The meat industry has fought for years to ensure that dietary guidelines do not call for eating less meat.
Results of this industry-versus-government food fight may dictate content of the guidelines, which are an important resource for school lunches and other federal food programs. Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Coke and Pepsi have found a way to increase profits in spite of growing concerns that sugary drinks are fueling childhood obesity. It amounts to smaller cans and bottles of the same sugar-laden soda. And people are apparently willing to pay more for less.
Sales of Coke’s mini-can (7.5 ounces) and (l.25-liter) smaller bottle rose 9 percent during the first three quarters of 2014 while regular 12-ounce cans and 2-liter bottles rose only 0.1 percent. Go figure.
This doesn’t mean large servings, which still predominate on supermarket shelves, will be unavailable. What is clear is that marketing for Coke and Pepsi is changing to accommodate a burgeoning interest in health. Coke is currently promoting “Coke Life,” a lower-calorie soda sweetened with some sugar and the non-caloric plant-based sweetener stevia.
It’s also an acknowledgment by the company that ballooning portions are partly to blame for the general sense that soda is unhealthy. In the days of my youth, Coke was only available in 6.5 ounce glass bottles, which we cherished as treats. Larger glass bottles began to appear in the mid- 1950s, followed by the now-pervasive aluminum cans.
A recent news article featured an adolescent girl whose mother conned her into giving up soda pop for one year. She did, but we didn’t learn if she had in fact lost weight (hard to tell in a growing child) or if she has returned to her soda-gulping ways. Maybe the new mini-cans will seem more appealing after having quit cold turkey.
Whether the market for smaller portions continues is something marketers are debating. But even as containers have shrunk, people are paying more per ounce for the contents. If this leads to actual weight loss is anyone’s guess. In any case, Coke and Pepsi revenues have increased significantly and so, as usual, the companies may have the last laugh.