Vitaminwater has been declared to be ‘not nutritious’ by a British Advertising Czar.
The Advertising Standards Authority said Coca-Cola broke ad rules when it described its popular line of flavored water products as “delicious and nutritious” in an ad last summer, explaining that consumers wouldn’t expect a drink marketed as nutritious to have between four and five teaspoons of added sugar.
It is amazing that we live in a world where bureaucrats, whose interests are not aligned with the interests of the consumers, are given the power to make the decisions about our lifestyles and food product choices. They not only purport to protect us from ourselves, but they protect us from advertising they deem to be out of alignment with their interests.
What is even more stupefying is how government, especially the U.S. government, has managed to coerce consumer food choices with its collaboration with the very powerful Big Agra-Big Food establishment that is enabled by agricultural subsidies, FDA policy, the medical establishment, and the congressional complex that assigns and directs the privileges and power. These companies – such as Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo, Tyson, ConAgra, Cargill – rely on government decrees to gain acceptance, markets, and exclusivity for their products. Vitaminwater is owned by the very powerful Coca-Cola Co. As per the usual, the company relies on catchwords such as “natural,” “healthy,” “vitamins,” etc. to win over ignorant consumers who make no effort to understand the simple truth on the other side of the bottle. Here are the ingredients for Vitaminwater (one flavor).
Distilled/deionized, crystalline fructose, citric acid, natural flavor, ascorbic acid (vitamin c), natural flavor extract (for color), electrolytes (calcium, magnesium and potassium), vitamin E acetate, zinc picolinate, taurine, vitamin A palmitate, niacin (B3), pantothenic acid (B5), Siberian ginseng extract, chromium polynicotinate, cyanacolobalamin (B12), pyridoxine hydrochloride (B6), dragonfruit juice concentrate.
So we have sugar water dressed up in a healthy name with synthetic chemicals (called vitamins) with “only” 13 grams of sugar per serving, but a bottle is 2.5 servings. And I see people buying this stuff – and similar deceptive products – in droves because they have been trained to think it is “healthy.”
Mike Adams, who tends to be hysterical and left-wing on all things food, states this in his article about the U.S.-based, anti-consumer Center for Science in the Public Interest and its lawsuit against Coca-Cola Co. for deceptive advertising in the case of Vitaminwater:
But most consumers don’t read labels. Even if they attempted to, most consumers are simply unable to decode what food labels really mean. People simply believe whatever is most prominently displayed on the front of the package, which in this case are the two words “vitamin” and “water.”
On top of that, mainstream consumers are disturbingly gullible. If a product is positioned as being healthy, that’s what people believe it’s for, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. After all, why do so many people believe Slim-Fast will make them lose weight even though it’s made mostly from processed refined sugar?
I agree completely with those two paragraphs. But for Adams, when the consumer is deemed to be inept, it is government’s job (or the job of some collective group that works in the “public interest”) to step in and sort it all out. And always, government politicians and agencies that regulate have their own agenda and their own beneficiaries who steer government policy in their favor. Somehow, that becomes a preferred option as opposed to corporate interests with their own agenda and beneficiaries?
What is the libertarian or freedom-oriented solution? It’s up to the consumer – whether the end decision is good, bad, or destructive. Additionally, the rest of us wouldn’t be paying for the consequences of the bad decisions of others through the redistribution of income via the welfare state. With government out of the way, private interests would step in to audit, test, and certify food – as well as labels and ingredients – and make recommendations to consumers in for-profit endeavors. Consumers could then choose among these various for-profit (or philanthropic) private interests to assist them in making educated choices without interference from the many competing political interests that seek to control consumer perception, choice, and access.
The other option is for human beings to actually be accountable for their own body that they own and become informed enough to make fairly educated choices. They’ll do this when it comes to making choices between 4 different models of smart phones, or when choosing car, but they leave food choices – a product that gives life – up to organizations, companies, and governments that have their own very explicit interests. But since individualism is constantly being stripped away in favor of collectivism, the concept of self-ownership, and hence self-accountability, is almost extinct among the majority of the masses. As a result, the reliance that individuals place on government to direct and regulate every aspect of their lives is driven by this collective culture.
{ 31 comments }
You should see the school lunch menus. It all starts from a young age…
Once the state assumed the burden of providing “health care,” it was only natural that is would also assume the role of regulating what people would be allowed to consume as well. To me, you have to either defend the government’s role in both or oppose the government’s role in both. Unfortunately, some neo-cons have yet to learn this, and so they defend Medicare et al. but oppose the government interfering in their personal lives. Thy simply cannot have it both ways.
I would bet that if the government stopped “guaranteeing” health care, people would be more inclined to see if that which they are consuming is actually healthy. Not that they would become perfectly healthy overnight. They would simply have a stronger incentive be more responsible for themselves.
Seriously, though, do you really need a nutritional label to tell you that the super-sweet drink you’re enjoying is unhealthy?
Well, vitaminwater does have a lot of vitamines. And sugar, as a carbohydrate, is the basic fuel of our bodies…
Yes, but there are two buts:
1) a certain vitamin may come in few slightly different compounds, that are all called vitamin but they indeed have different ability to be used by our bodies. Some just flush through.
2) it is questionable whether high doses of fructose are a healthy source of energy, since it metabolizes quite differently from glucose. And it is glucose that is an ultimate fuel of body, not fructose.
The ordinary white sugar (at least out of the usa) is 50/50 glucose/fructose, while maple syrup is mostly glucose =)
“People are too inept to read the food labels.”
The same food labels they are required by the government to provide in the form they are provided in? I’d call this a case of middle-in-the-road policy leads to socialism.
Actually, at this point it’s fairly likely that food labels are here to stay, even if the state were abolished tomorrow. The “nothing to hide” principle’s pretty hard to argue against when it comes to food.
Agreed… I would not buy food that did not either have ingredients listed or come from a trusted source.
I recall from my days in government schooling both the Four Food Groups and the Food Guide Pyramid. Government loves groups and pyramids. How does the body use the foods in the groups? Is there really a hierarchy of food? Is it the same from person to person? Predictably, the FDA’s “one size fits all” nutritional guidelines have had unintended consequences. And that size is XXXL.
hmmm, I love vitaminwater! not because it is healthy or whatever but because it is light compared to other drinks, uses sugar not corn, and it tastes yummy. the trumped-up health racket should be obvious to anyone who has ever walked in a grocery store.
Jeff — Vitaminwater uses crystalline fructose, which is indeed derived from corn (the Most Favored Subsidized Product), and it is almost pure fructose. It is far sweeter than regular sugar and even more sweet than HFCS. It is used for the purpose of shaving off the calories, which appeals to the dumbed-down, lied-to masses who read the calorie count on the label and think being fat is a question of thermogenesis. Fructose is digested and metabolized differently than sucrose, and it is a major contributing factor to NAFLD (Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease). Even the FDA machination has refused to recognize it as “safe.”
As far as the health racket being obvious to everyone …… it is easy for some of us to say, but since I am constantly engaging the masses on this issue, one-on-one and in groups, I can tell you that a very large percentage (90%+) are completely ignorant because they subscribe to the conventional wisdom of the day, even though that same “wisdom” has given them -0- results over a number of years. Therein lies the problem – breaking down the mythology.
“sugar, as a carbohydrate, is the basic fuel of our bodies…”
Are you talking about this kind of “wisdom”?
Ha, sorry – just realised you answered this monstrosity of a comment below.
Vitor – sugar is _not_ the “basic fuel of our bodies” and Vitaminwater contains synthetic chemical vitamins, not the vitamins that come from nature (plant and animal food). Did you read my piece or scan a few sentences? What was I just saying (above) about the general level of ignorance? No wonder the masses beg government to regulate and direct them. It’s because they refuse to think for themselves, even with the mega-wealth of material available for free on the web.
A vitamin is a vitamin. It doesn’t matter whether it’s created in a chemistry lab or in nature. You can argue that, say, an orange is a better source of Vitamin C than Vitaminwater, because the orange contains many more nutrients (like dietary fiber), but you can’t argue that an orange (or any other “natural” food) is better because the Vitamin C in it is “natural” as opposed to the Vitamin C in Vitamin water.
You’re right about everything else, of course. (;
On the topic of slimfast (or “Slim Fast” or “Slimfast” or whatever), it pisses me off that people think that’s how to lose weight. If you’re trying to lose fat, why don’t you slowly start cutting calories and eating healthier, until you’re eating a healthy, below maintenance (calorie wise) diet? Step 1: Cut out everything you drink, minus milk, water, and HOMEMADE juices. Step 2: Eat fruits and veggies high in dietary fiber and micronutrients. Step 3: Make sure you consume enough dietary fat and protein from animal sources. Step 4 (the most important step for those wanting to lose fat): Make sure you eat below your maintenance level of calories.
Simple. Yet people still seem to get confused.
But aren’t you just assuming that it is X molecules of vitamin C entering your mouth that is important and then no further analysis is needed? The body is a complex system – it doesn’t analyse the content of the food, queue the tasks and then do them one by one, it has to multitask and it has evolved while eating natural foods. The Italian practice of eating protein and carbohydrates separately for example – there may be good physiological reasons for this, though no’one disputes that the molecules are the same regardless of how they are eaten. Pure molecules of vitamin C, or vitamin C in unfamiliar chemical concoctions, will not necessarily trigger the same processes in the digestive system to allow it to be optimally absorbed than would be triggered by vitamins in a more natural vehicle.
There isn’t any good reason for eating proteins and carbohydrates separately, it’s purely a cultural practice. Going into the mouth at different intervals is irrelevant. Food is broken down in the stomach and then the intestines extract the nutrients. It’s a lengthy process and the only way to ensure that one particular molecule isn’t mixed up with others is to eat that molecule and that alone and then wait 8 hours before eating something different.
You’re right that it does multitask, but you can’t think of the body as a computer processor or your brain. It multitasks in a sense that there are numerous independent functions that do their thing, some cases without concern with what other parts are doing. So Vitamin C out of an organge, Vitamin C out of a strawberry (better source than an orange), and Vitamin C out of a tablet are all the same thing. Yes, your body DOES analyze each molecule, again not in the sense that your brain or a computer would, it’s a chemical reaction that happens when the molecule comes in “contact” with another, many of which are specialized enough to not react to anything but that molecule. There may be a hypothesis (let me stress there is no theory on the matter), but no one has been able to demonstrate that someone taking Vitamin C pills is going through life with scurvy and with people living decades longer than our “natrual” ancestors, there’s hardly any argument such things are worth any consideration, serious or otherwise.
“There isn’t any good reason for eating proteins and carbohydrates separately, it’s purely a cultural practice.”
Many people with many advocates disagree with your categorical statement – Harvey Diamond “1.Food Separation–Carbohydrate and protein meals should be separated. According to Diamond, food separation will guarantee better digestion since carbs and protein need different enzymes under different pH.”
I don’t know what is answer is for sure (note above I said “maybe”). Seemingly you do know for sure though.
“Going into the mouth at different intervals is irrelevant. Food is broken down in the stomach and then the intestines extract the nutrients.”
Enzymes in the saliva are the beginning of the digestive process, not the stomach. Where did I say we should “ensure that one particular molecule isn’t mixed up with others”? If you are saying that there is definitely no way that particular combinations of food stuffs can optimise the utilisation of the scarce resources available during the digestive process, then I suggest that this is far more requiring of an explanation than the idea you can utilise them better by avoiding some combinations and eating some things together.
The Bizarre Food Czar Concept!
Without limited government or another viable alternate – that of no government – encroachment is constant and pervasive. The effects are very deep; meaning the individual psyche is affected and then voila! – “the concept of self-ownership, and hence self-accountability, is almost extinct among the majority of the masses.”
The fresh food movement associated with the food network and those types of shows and the variety of magazines along those lines and online sites of that nature is a promising development to counter the ‘mess hall’ mentality of socialism.
I’ve read NaturalNews.com and Mike Adams, and, no, he doesn’t tend to be “hysterical and left-wing on all things food.” Mike is left to libertarian. He has an agenda, to be sure, be he is also for choice. In fact he mentions Ron Paul often and is a supporter of Paul and many things libertarian. The author of this bit of blog might be interested in the etymology of the word hysteria. It pertains to a certain female body area and it’s use doesn’t pertain to the male of the species.
Joe: Adams is consistently calling for government to regulate, ban, and otherwise use the force of government to force choices. There is absolutely no mistaking that fact no matter how you want to spin it. In addition, his writing is almost never anchored by sources, definitions, and solid research. Also, instead of going off on some strange tangent concerning the etymology of words, you might want to look up the definition of the word I actually used: hysterical. Simple enough.
Actually, it’s not simple enough. What do you think hysterical is a derivative of? Hysteria
“1610s, from L. hystericus “of the womb,” from Gk. hysterikos “of the womb, suffering in the womb,” from hystera “womb” (see uterus). Originally defined as a neurotic condition peculiar to women and thought to be caused by a dysfunction of the uterus. Meaning “very funny” (by 1939) is from the notion of uncontrollable fits of laughter.”
Here’s the source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=hysterical
Adams is hardly prone to uncontrollable fits of laughter.
Simple enough.
While I”m at it. Here’s a link to a recent Adams article.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031084_bird_deaths_holocaust.html
You’ll notice that it is larded with sources.
When Karen suggests looking up a word, it would be logical to assume she means the common usage, the first definition given, rather the informal and less common usage given as an alternative definition. The meaning is made clear by the context of her use of the word. That you would claim otherwise, I find simply hysterical.
Okay, Here’s what the Oxford definition says:
Pronunciation:/hiˈsterēə, -ˈsti(ə)rēə, həˈstɪriə/
noun
exaggerated or uncontrollable emotion or excitement, especially among a group of people:the mass hysteria that characterizes the week before Christmas
Psychiatrya psychological disorder (not now regarded as a single definite condition) whose symptoms include conversion of psychological stress into physical symptoms (somatization), selective amnesia, shallow volatile emotions, and overdramatic or attention-seeking behavior. The term has a controversial history as it was formerly regarded as a disease specific to women
By the way, you still can’t deny hysteria’s origins and connection to the womb; hence, hysterectomy.
Mike, is not uncontrollable or irrational, or extremely fearful. He is anti FDA, anti corporatism, anti a lot of government. He’s no Rothbardian, but on many issues, he’s libertarian. Words have meaning, and to treat them as interpretive dance is disrespectful to the English language.
Joe Esty,
Clearly, you meant to write “words have meanings”, not “words have meaning”, because to suggest that words have only one meaning each derived directly from the historical usage would be disrespectful to the English language. And you wouldn’t want to disrespect a language as pure and logical as English, would you?
Languages are just tools, used to express ideas. To suggest that in this way they are any different from interpretive dance is incorrect.
That being said, although I’ve never heard of Mike Adams, from the link that Karen provided (http://www.naturalnews.com/029425_vitaminwater_Coca-Cola.html), he seems to be alright. In this particular article, at least, he does not explicitly advocate that the government should get involved – he only uses the quotes from recent court proceedings to reinforce his own points. He actually advocates his own solution in place of the government, something he developed called the HonestFoodGuide, some sort of pamphlet you can carry around with you in a supermarket to help you to decide which products to buy.
This actually seems like a fairly pro-libertarian kind of solution to me. The HonestFoodGuide is free, and the site advertises itself as a sort of humanist-philanthropist thing, but at the end of the day it is selling products his readers want, and articles like the one linked are deliberately provocative to drive up page-hits for his advertisements. Nothing wrong with that. Nowhere does Mike Adams advocate forcing companies to change their ways (in fact if they did so he would be out of work), he only advises people on how to get around them.
Summary: Karen was maybe a little bit too harsh on Mike Adams, Joe Esty was maybe a little bit too harsh on Karen, but everybody agrees that government should stay out of our food.
While I’m at it. Here’s a link to a recent Adams article.
http://www.naturalnews.com/031084_bird_deaths_holocaust.html
You’ll notice that It’s larded with sources.
Here are a couple links to Mike Adams article, so readers can get an idea of where Adams stands and how he sources:
http://www.naturalnews.com/030271_elections_health_care.html
http://www.naturalnews.com/031084_bird_deaths_holocaust.html
DeCoster is right, of course. I can remember my family nanny trying to sell me on some health drink a few months ago. She went on and on about the health benefits, etc. I asked her what the ingredients are. She literally went blank. She had never read the ingredients. She had no idea. It’s just “healthy.”
Colin – I am not too harsh on Mike Adams. This is _one_ article. I have linked to Mike calling for government regulation and intervention (search my blog/LRC blog) in the past. He does not dislike corporatism, as his free Public Defender Joe (who is obsessing on etymology and pointless comments) says. He hates business, period. Unless he is making money on his stuff, of course. He has never written about corporatism and defined it, or made the distinction between the free market and the corporate state. He is not a libertarian, and plus, he has a sloppy way of drawing decent conclusions.
He only recently started linking (or listing sources) in his stories because of constant criticism. Or he links to irrelevant bits in his articles without linking to a source that proves what he is broadcasting. He is a sensationalist – just scan his headlines. If/when I have linked to Adams without a “disclaimer,” I have been assaulted with emails from angry libertarians for, in the end, being on the same side as this guy. Da**ed if you do, da**ed if you don’t. Ahhh well. BTW, what is the etymology of da**ed?
I’m sorry, you’re right, I based my opinion on one article. I see that you’ve been doing good work, and my criticism was out of line.
I’d like to point out that a nutritionist at my doctor’s office told me that the simplest way to lose weight is not to go in for fad diets, but to exercise, and to simply count calories in, calories out (of course, that doesn’t excuse eating something with a massive amount of saturated fat in it, even if the calorie count is fine).
Following that advice, using Slimfast, I’ve lost ~20 lbs in 6 months. Not steller, but I still eat too much processed foods, and that’s holding me back. Still, replacing my breakfast with Slimfast, reducing the caloric intake from eggs, bacon, toast, etc. to the 170 calories in the Slimfast (well, the storebrand Slimfast knock-off), has assisted me in losing weight.
Comments on this entry are closed.