Claire Everett
With the news that by 2015 cigarettes and other tobacco products will be forced 'undercounter' in all shops, and branding potentially removed from packaging, it’s interesting to consider how much visual marketing impacts on our health choices.
One in five deaths in England are caused by smoking (Department of Health 2011), whilst one in eleven are attributable to obesity (Banegas 2003). A ban on tobacco advertising on television has been enforced over the past few decades, and in 2007 nutrition began to follow suit with restrictions on the advertising of ‘unhealthy’ food to children. Whilst it’s difficult to envisage junk food ever being relegated to undercounter shelves, exactly how much does its shelf positioning and branding influence us?
If we took away the bright familiar packaging from crisps, biscuits and chocolate, we’d be left with a pretty dull picture. And when these various shades of brown are lined up next to colourful fruit and vegetables, the healthier choice suddenly looks the more appealing – perhaps especially so to children. The debate has raged for years over whether supermarkets should be allowed to position confectionary displays by the checkouts (Derbyshire 2005) and whilst some supermarkets have removed them, it seems they’ve not replaced them with healthy snacks but instead used the space to display magazines and leaflets. It’s probably a bit far-fetched to suggest we should see carrot sticks and hummous in the behind-counter displays once cigarettes disappear from them for good, but it would be interesting to observe the impact on their sales if this happened.
It’s not only the colours and logos, but of course the straplines and health claims, that create the familiarity and appeal of branded snacks. But even when claims of “sugar-free”, “light” and low calorific values appear on branded processed foods, their healthiness is questionable. A food that claims to be “90% fat-free” is thought of as low-fat, but look on a bottle of full fat milk, that we generally consider a high-fat product, and you’ll realise it’s actually 96% fat-free. Many healthier foods like fruit don’t have packaging to make these claims on, and interestingly the advertising on healthier packaged foods like nuts and dried fruit tends to focus things like anti-oxidants, vitamins and minerals which don’t contribute to weightloss, and thus for many don’t hold the same association with health.
The big issue from a retail and commercial perspective, is that fresh fruit only generates 3-6% profit, whereas a highly processed biscuit can generate more than 15% profit (Lang et al 2006) - so it makes no sense for food companies to spend vast sums of money advertising these lower profit products. Some will argue that a packaged snack is more convenient, but is it really that tricky to transport and eat an apple? Added value has been introduced to fresh fruit with pots of ready-prepared fresh pineapple etc commonly found. But what is seen as ‘added value’ to the manufacturer, is ‘added cost’ to the consumer - suddenly making fresh fruit seem an expensive option.
Personally, I don’t believe ‘hiding’ food is the answer. Certainly hiding a bar of chocolate from myself in my desk drawer never works, and I’ll have munched my way through it by 11am. But one thing that does work is having an alternative available. If I have a pot of cranberries and macadamias on my desk, I’ll happily snack on these and not even think about chocolate. So perhaps putting healthy snacks by the checkout and in the space left vacant by cigarettes, and giving them a colourful health promoting slogan or two is the way forward after all.
28.3.11
Japan’s nuclear disaster: is our food safe?
Nova Corcoran
Recent news coverage of Japan’s tsunami and the resulting nuclear plant damage has been making the news headlines daily. The main risks to human health from nuclear plant damage aside from the possible effects of radiation sickness and direct exposure is actually from food. There are now reports of Asian eateries refusing to stock some Japanese food products (Balfour 2011) which may encourage sushi lovers to think twice about their lunchtime meal. In truth there is little risk to our health from contaminated food unless you happen to drink milk or tap water from the Fukushima area which for most of us is highly unlikely.
Interestingly food that is exposed to radiation does not always make it harmful to human health. Some foods such as fruit are irradiated* to increase shelf life. There are also sources of naturally occurring radiation in our food transferred from rocks, soil and water. These are very low levels of radiation which pose little risk to human health. Artificial radiation such as that from the Fukushima nuclear plant can enter the food chain in the same way. For example cows eat contaminated grass, and secrete radioactive iodine in their milk. Levels of artificial radiation are considerably higher than those occurring naturally.
Contaminated food is problematic as radioactive particles are more dangerous when digested causing internal irradiation of organs, and damaging our DNA thus increasing cancer risks (Beckett 2011; FSA 2011). The most common of these cancers is thyroid cancer. The link to food consumption becomes clearer with the knowledge that if in the Ukraine, after the Chenobyl nuclear disaster measures were taken to stop people drinking milk exposure to radiation would have been reduced thus lowering thyroid cancer risks (Grady 2011).
In Fukushima milk and spinach have been found to have higher than normal levels of radiation but even these levels are still pose small risk to health (Shears 2011). The New York Times noted that other potential food sources that show signs of contamination include wild berries, mushrooms, animals and freshwater i.e. lakes and these may be contaminated for years to come. However these are contaminated with the particulate cesium rather than iodine which has a shorter life span (around 8 days). Cesium is not stored in any one part of the body and increases the overall cancer risk by a very small amount (Narayan et al 2011).
There is currently little threat to the UK or European food chain from the Fukushima disaster. Radioactive elements are heavy and do not travel far so contamination is likely to be limited to local areas in Japan. In addition seawater contamination is not too problematic for fish or seafood as the sea covers such a large area and radiation is diluted. So for now eat your sushi and enjoy - radiation is likely to have very little effect on your daily lunch.
*The process of exposing food to ionizing radiation. This has a variety of purposes such as to reduce bacteria, microorganisms or delay ripening.
Recent news coverage of Japan’s tsunami and the resulting nuclear plant damage has been making the news headlines daily. The main risks to human health from nuclear plant damage aside from the possible effects of radiation sickness and direct exposure is actually from food. There are now reports of Asian eateries refusing to stock some Japanese food products (Balfour 2011) which may encourage sushi lovers to think twice about their lunchtime meal. In truth there is little risk to our health from contaminated food unless you happen to drink milk or tap water from the Fukushima area which for most of us is highly unlikely.
Interestingly food that is exposed to radiation does not always make it harmful to human health. Some foods such as fruit are irradiated* to increase shelf life. There are also sources of naturally occurring radiation in our food transferred from rocks, soil and water. These are very low levels of radiation which pose little risk to human health. Artificial radiation such as that from the Fukushima nuclear plant can enter the food chain in the same way. For example cows eat contaminated grass, and secrete radioactive iodine in their milk. Levels of artificial radiation are considerably higher than those occurring naturally.
Contaminated food is problematic as radioactive particles are more dangerous when digested causing internal irradiation of organs, and damaging our DNA thus increasing cancer risks (Beckett 2011; FSA 2011). The most common of these cancers is thyroid cancer. The link to food consumption becomes clearer with the knowledge that if in the Ukraine, after the Chenobyl nuclear disaster measures were taken to stop people drinking milk exposure to radiation would have been reduced thus lowering thyroid cancer risks (Grady 2011).
In Fukushima milk and spinach have been found to have higher than normal levels of radiation but even these levels are still pose small risk to health (Shears 2011). The New York Times noted that other potential food sources that show signs of contamination include wild berries, mushrooms, animals and freshwater i.e. lakes and these may be contaminated for years to come. However these are contaminated with the particulate cesium rather than iodine which has a shorter life span (around 8 days). Cesium is not stored in any one part of the body and increases the overall cancer risk by a very small amount (Narayan et al 2011).
There is currently little threat to the UK or European food chain from the Fukushima disaster. Radioactive elements are heavy and do not travel far so contamination is likely to be limited to local areas in Japan. In addition seawater contamination is not too problematic for fish or seafood as the sea covers such a large area and radiation is diluted. So for now eat your sushi and enjoy - radiation is likely to have very little effect on your daily lunch.
*The process of exposing food to ionizing radiation. This has a variety of purposes such as to reduce bacteria, microorganisms or delay ripening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)