Barclay 1

Caitlin Barclay
Professor Colleen Kappeler
Mass Communication
October 2014
Its Not What it Looks Like: Finding a Definition for Healthy in American Media
This day in age, America seems to be fighting many battles. Battles of race, sexual
orientation, economy, health, and so much more. But a quieter battle continues to be fought
involving Americas right to be informed about the food they put in their bodies. Though the
nation has seen an influx of companies using words like natural and healthy, packaging
foods using colors and images that indicate freshness, and adhering to the FDA and USDAs
loose regulations for food packaging, only about 5% of North American companies that use these
tactics use them correctly. The rise of greenwashing and incorrect food labeling in the United
States has lead to a misinformed consumer and given America a warped idea of the concept of
healthy eating.
In 2007, An environmental marketing company called UL Environment conducted a
study in dissecting a process called greenwashing; the use of environmental claims by
corporations that lead the consumer to believe that the product is environmentally friendly, when
in reality, the product may have little to no environmental or health benefit. To help consumers
be more aware of these topics, UL created a handbook that outlined seven sins of greenwashing,
and how to be aware of them. These sins are: The Hidden Trade-Off, No Proof, Vagueness,
Irrelevance, Lesser of Two Evils, Fibbing, and Worshipping False Labels. To measure the
amount of products that committed these sins in North America, UL analyzed a total of 5,296
green products in 2010, with unique green claims totaling 12,061. This study revealed that

Barclay 2

95% of products that were labeled as green had committed at least one sin of greenwashing.
This leaves a mere 5% of products to be found sin-free (Underwriter Laboratories and Terra
Choice 6-10). Though this is more than twice the amount of sin-free products found in their
previous study in 2009, the miniscule number of truly honest products is harrowing.
One of the simplest of sins, vagueness, convinces consumers daily that just because a
product is labeled using certain words, it is beneficial. The most common use of vagueness are
when foods claim that their ingredients are 100% natural. This misleads the uninformed
consumer, as ingredients that could also be labeled 100% natural include arsenic, mercury, and
tobacco. Often, this vague food labeling is due to lack of regulations on the use of the word by
the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA states on their website that it
has not developed a definition for the word natural and its derivatives. A similar statement can
be found when asked to define the term organic. In addition, the term fresh can be used on
packaging for a product that has not been processed or preserved while being produced
("Guidelines for Industry: A Food Labeling Guide," sec N49-N50). However, after the item has
been produced, it can still be called fresh if it has been subjected to waxes or coatings, postharvest pesticides, chlorine or acid wash, and ionizing radiation.
One term that the food industry does not consider unimportant, however, is GMO, or
Genetically Modified Organism. It is defined as any organism, animal or plant, whose genetic
makeup has been tampered with to alter or improve the purpose it serves. Oftentimes, foreign
DNA is inserted into the organism, causing it to mutate ("GMO Defined") . Examples of foreign
DNA in food include anything from a harmful pesticide inserted into corn to chickens injected
with a growth hormone. In areas such as the European Union, China, and Japan, these practices
are prohibited by law. Most countries also require that products including genetically modified

Barclay 3

ingredients are clearly labeled as such. However, the US does not yet have any regulations
preventing the production, sale, or labeling of genetically modified foods. As a result, a vast
majority of our nations common crops are genetically modified, including 93% of soybeans,
88% of corn, and 90% of canola. As awareness is raised concerning this issue, a group of the
American public has banded together to protest this practice. In 2012, a bill called Proposition 37
moved to make California the first US state to require labeling of GMO foods. Unfortunately, the
bill has still not been passed, due to backlash from major US corporations that rely on GMOs to
keep up with popular demand. Corporations such as Monsanto, Coca-Cola, Kraft, and Dupont
invested over $40 million into campaigns lobbying against this proposition (Jargon and Berry).
Similar issues surfaced when other states, such as Washington, attempted to follow suit.
While the public begins to discover and analyze corporate tactics and lean toward a more
home grown approach to food, corporations such as McDonalds, are working tirelessly to
promote an image in line with consumer desires. The McDonalds website now includes a page
titled Supplier Stories, featuring images and statements from farmers across the country that
supply McDonalds meat, tomatoes, and potatoes. Quotes such as My great, great grandfather
started this farm, and were still using the same principles he did are placed over a backdrop of
a quaint-looking barn and a modest farmhouse. Not to say that the stories of these featured
suppliers arent true, but in reality, the people featured are secondary sources to the suppliers
McDonalds works with directly, including Cargill, Lopez Foods, Golden States, and Coca-Cola.
This is a blatant attempt to mislead the public to believe that a corporation that produces billions
of meals daily could rely on small suppliers at family farms. The campaign did receive some
backlash on social media, however. Hashtags such as #MeettheFarmers and #McStories were
used satirically and critiqued by farmers and Twitter users:

Barclay 4

Hey @McDonalds, I'd like to #meetthefarmers who grow the dimethylpolysiloxane &
tertiary butylhydroquinone for your fries!
I'm a farmer, but don't and won't grow anything for @McDonalds. #MeetTheFarmers
Despite the criticism received, the campaign remains in play and continues to appear on all
media platforms.
Another major factor that the food industry uses to lead consumers to adopt certain
assumptions about a product is very simple, and can prove extremely effective to even the
youngest consumer: the use of color. According to a study by two professors at the University of
Calgary, children are lead to assume many facts about a product based on this simple quality of
its package. The inclusion of greens and browns on a package or in the product itself convinced
both children and adults that the product must be healthful. Responses to packaging by children,
grades K-12 discovered four things:
1) Children view simple or boring packaging as more healthy
2) Less colorful packaging, or those without fun packaging are considered
healthy
3) Children did not identify simple packaging as marketing
4) Products containing certain colors send a specific message to children (ex. the
majority of children that were presented with a green package identified the product as
healthy)
However, some Americans would argue that the correct labeling of products would affect
the economy poorly, and that there is no way to solve the issue without the country suffering a
large collective loss. A common argument is also that there is no conclusive evidence stating the
relation between GMOs and health issues. When asked about its opposing view of Proposition
37, Kraft stated that the bill "could disrupt our ability to meet consumer demand for our
products, increase costs for California consumers and increase frivolous lawsuits against
businesses." A report by the Wall Street Journal States that The "No on 37" group

Barclay 5

commissioned a study that found that swapping out ingredients would increase Californians'
annual food costs by $350 to $400 per household. Changing packaging would carry a one-time
cost of $300 million to $800 million
The question Americans need to ask themselves, though, is what the cost of a healthier
nation is worth. With the countrys obesity rate at an all-time high and cancer diagnoses at
estimated at 1,665,540 new cases this year, it is our duty to ask ourselves whether or not it is
appropriate to live life in denial, ignoring the possibility of a better system, or deciding to be part
of a major change. More and more research is surfacing supporting the claim that genetically
modified foods contain certain chemicals that cannot be digested, but are absorbed into the blood
instead. These can cause issues including, but not limited to: gluten intolerance, breast cancer,
birth defects, and tumors. These issues; obesity, cancer, autoimmune disorders, etc. are part the
price our nation pays to avoid the cost of giving a definition to the word healthy and
interrupting the delicate infrastructure of our economy. How much farther must we go before the
concept of nutrition is unrecognizable?

Sources Cited
1) Brown, Eileen. "McDonald's #McStories Gets 'supersized' with Twitter
Backlash." ZDNet. CBS Interactive, 24 Jan. 2012. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.
2) Claudio, Luz. Colour Use in Food Marketing. Media Literacy in Food Marketing.
University of Calgary, n.d. Web. 2 Oct. 2014.

Barclay 6

3) "GMO Defined." GMO Awareness. GMO Awareness, 2013. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.
4) "Guidance for Industry: A Food Labeling Guide." Guidance for Industry: A
Labeling Guide (8. Claims). US Food and Drug Administration, 22 Nov. 2013. Web. 05
Oct. 2014.
5) Jargon, Julie, and Ian Berry. "Dough Rolls Out to Fight 'Engineered' Label on
Food." The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, 25 Oct. 2012. Web. 05 Oct.
2014.
6) Underwriter Laboratories, and Terra Choice. "The Sins of Greenwashing: A
Report On Environmental Claims Made In The North American Consumer Market." The
Sins of Greenwashing (2010): 6-10. 2010. Web. 3 Oct. 2014.
7) "What Is the Meaning of 'natural' on the Label of Food?" About FDA:
Transparency. US Food and Drug Administration, 10 Apr. 2014. Web. 03 Oct. 2014.