The cheesiest ad you will see today

AdFreak shared this new provocation by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:

It's going to be placed along the highway in De Pere, Wisconsin, where Green Bay Packers cheeseheads will see it on the way to Lambeau Field on Oct. 2 for a game against the Denver Broncos.

That's right, they want Wisconsinites to give up cheese.

From PCRM's release:

"Foods served at Lambeau Field’s eateries are typically loaded with cheese and other high-fat dairy products. Offerings include Hall of Fame Curds, which are deep-fried Wisconsin cheese curds; Cheesehead Beer Cheese Soup, made with cheddar cheese, beer, and then topped with more cheese; and nachos piled with cheddar cheese and sour cream. Americans today eat three times as much cheese as they did in 1970—almost 33 pounds per person in a single year.

'Our greatest concern is for children who are fed cheese products by their well-meaning parents,' says PCRM nutrition education director Susan Levin, M.S., R.D. “Cheese is loaded with fat, cholesterol, sodium—and calories. It ought to come with a warning label so consumers understand the health risk."

Oh, really?

In case you aren't familiar with these guys, they are actually an animal welfare organization in disguise. I have long considered them another front for PETA, although the relationship is arm's length, with PETA only providing them some funding.

There is no doubt that too much cheese is bad for your health. And Wisconsinites are overweight. But that's not really why PCRM wants people to stop eating cheese.

From Quackwatch:

"The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a nonprofit association that claims to promote "optimal diet for prevention of disease," says there is evidence that humans don't have a specific requirement for protein, and teaches that "too much dietary protein from animal sources is detrimental to health."  PCRM's reference to "animal sources" is key to understanding its true purpose. Its leader, Neal Barnard, MD, has been identified as medical adviser to the radical animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and PCRM may be substantially funded by it."

Which is certainly their prerogative. But why not be more honest about their motives? Because a billboard that says "the dairy industry is cruel to cows" does not appeal to people's self interest. Instead, PCRM goes after the consumption of animal-based foods with dire warnings about health consequences.

Personally, I am much more concerned about cruelty to humans than cruelty to animals. What would you think if I went on a rant about inhumane child labour in the cultivation of chocolate, coffee or bananas, but then I suddenly told you that I wanted you to stop buying those things because I'm worried for your health? You'd question my motives. (And probably ask me why I didn't consider Fairtrade tropical goods.)

Anything is bad for you in excess. Factory farming is disgusting and cruel. And PCRM is not a very "responsible" advertiser, IMHO.

Double Down at the Dirty Bird

No, it is not consumer-driven fast food mashup like the Mcgangbang. Nor an obscure sport-eating food from the This Is Why You're Fat photoblog — like Ottawa's own gravy pizza.

This is an actual meal marketed by Kentucky Fried Chicken:

[via AdFreak]

Note that I called the chain by its old name, as opposed to the euphemistic "KFC". That was on purpose.

Years ago, the Colonel's troops got on the healthier food bandwagon and started offering grilled chicken and other low-fat options. Their corporate site still claims, "We believe eating sensibly, combined with appropriate exercise, is the best solution for a healthy lifestyle."

[via AVClub]

Made of two slabs of boneless fried chicken, bacon, double cheese and mayo-based sauce, the Double Down has 540 calories, 32 grams of fat, and 1380 milligrams of sodium.

So, an "appropriate exercise" to work the Double Down into anything resembling a healthy lifestyle would be to Running for an hour at about 8.4 km per hour (burning 531 of those 540 calories) or if you actually want to lose weight, biking for an hour at about 25 kph (590 calories). Of course, this assumes you didn't get a combo with a pop and fries...

Oh, and Health Canada recommends that adults do not exceed 2,300 mg of sodium per day. Per day.

While McDonald's keeps toying with portion control in an attempt to appeal to more health-conscious family consumers, Kentucky Fried Chicken has obviously decided their future lies more with young adult males. To this big-eating, big-drinking, burn-it-off-somehow generation the Double Down will provide a tempting alternative to heart-busting treats like the Burger King Quad Stacker and the Wendy's Baconator.

[via wikimedia]

Don't get me wrong. I love a good "bad" meal as much as the next guy. But this idea of competitive junk food eating being embraced by more and more international brands in their everyday menu items kind of turns my stomach.

Take the pickle out

As a career social marketer, I really believe in what my clients are trying to accomplish. At the same time, I feel it's my duty to help them understand the realities of their target markets' world. For example, "preaching to the choir", or appealing to extreme activists while alienating the general public, can be a waste of good media money. Or even worse, a barrier to mainstream change.

I've been thinking a lot lately about the fine balance between educating the public and overplaying your message. Partly because I see this ad during every morning's transit commute:



Let me be clear that this is not a cheap shot at the worthy cause of preventing stroke, or even at the agency that created the campaign. I'm sure they're all very determined to help Canadians reduce the salt in their diet.

But "Sodium kills 30 Canadians each day"? That's kind of hard to swallow.

I checked out the web site, looking for the research behind the claim. In short, it's this:

* Excess sodium raises your blood pressure.

* Optimal blood pressure is less than 120/80 mmHg.

* A blood pressure of greater than 140/90 mmHg is the clinical definition of hypertension. One in four adults in Canada has hypertension.

* Reducing your blood pressure by just 10/5 mmHg by lifestyle change or medication reduces your risk of heart failure by 50 per cent, stroke by 30 per cent, heart attack by 15 per cent and premature death by 10 per cent.

I have to assume the 30 people killed are actually the reverse of the 30 people who will die of heart attack, stroke, and related premature death today who could have been saved by reducing sodium. But beyond downloading and reading the academic PDFs and doing math (I was told there would be no math!) as lazy consumer I remain unconvinced that salt will be directly responsible for 30 people dying today.

Of course, I also have to admit to myself that death stats on smoking may be derived much the same way. And that's a hard comparison to make as someone who has campaigned hard to reduce smoking rates. (Truth be told, my personal focus is on secondhand smoke around children and captive audiences, which also has to do with human rights.)

Of course, death statistics are rarely isolated to one cause. It's hard to control variables for heavy smokers, since their high-risk behaviour and socio-economic factors come into play. That doesn't mean that a decrease in smoking won't save lives. Quitting, cutting back, and keeping it out of other people's lungs will still have a powerful effect.

With salt, it could be that the highest consumers are also living off of fast food, which is also full of fat, sugar, and not-nutritious filler. Plus they may also be inactive, overworked, or just plain uninterested in their own health.

For example, the linked article on "salt and obesity" cites a study with this conclusion:

The authors conclude that the increased intake of salt, through its effect on thirst, has lead to an increased intake of high-energy beverages, which has in turn remarkably contributed to the increase of obesity in the United States.

...which is the sugar problem once again.

I guess lifestyle issues will always be complicated. And just as with any health issue, the dangers of salt has its detractors.

So why does this campaign bother me? Is it because the health issue about salt is not yet on my radar? Because salty foods (homemade and artisinal, mostly) are a lifestyle sin that I'm just not willing to give up? Am I a hypocritical skeptician?

Maybe it's just the mainstream social marketer in me that feels uneasy with the broad claims of the campaign. I'm not advising anyone to eat more salt. But I'm just not sure telling people that pickles, pizza and pasta (all based on God-knows-what recipe) are deadly poison is really the right approach to changing behaviour. Nor is the deceit some other unrelated campaigners in the U.K. have practised. I always believed that mainstream campaigns should be forthright, credible, and asking for achievable action.

I'm just not ready to take the pickle out of my diet yet. I might even eat poutine again. I'll just do it all in moderation, keep exercising, and try not to panic.