HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >

Anyone else think this is silly?

ipsedixit Mar 29, 2013 09:28 PM

From the WSJ, in an article titled, "Smaller Size? No Thanks to This Pledge":

>>>In 2010, 16 food and drink makers made the joint pledge to shave one trillion calories from the products they sell in U.S. stores and vending machines by 2012, and 1.5 trillion calories by 2015, both compared with 2007 levels. The firms were all members of a newly formed group called the Healthy Weight Commitment Foundation—the culmination of several years of talks with each other and with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on how the industry could help shrink American waistlines.<<<

So why do I think this is a silly idea? Here's why, continuing from the article:

>>>But skeptics point out that the pledge's big central number represents just 2% of all calories produced by these companies. And it looks a lot smaller on a per-person, per-day basis: just 14 calories,...<<<

Decide for yourself: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001...

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
Delete
  1. njmarshall55 RE: ipsedixit Apr 2, 2013 08:57 AM

    Ok...smaller portions, less calories...same cost?

    1. g
      GH1618 RE: ipsedixit Apr 2, 2013 09:27 AM

      Not silly, but inadequate.

      3 Replies
      1. re: GH1618
        c
        cresyd RE: GH1618 Apr 2, 2013 09:52 AM

        Agree. Hearing about these kinds of decisions always strike me a bit more as a marketing promo than a true "changing how people eat" concept.

        1. re: cresyd
          ipsedixit RE: cresyd Apr 2, 2013 10:02 AM

          Hence, silly. Right?

          1. re: ipsedixit
            c
            cresyd RE: ipsedixit Apr 2, 2013 11:18 AM

            In action, yes. But not the idea. I think what's unfortunate about this, is that ideas like this aren't pressed far enough.

            Without getting too specific - it's like when various businesses/corporations partner with nonprofits. Most corporate giving comes from the same pot of money as marketing/advertising. It gets some good buzz, but it's not always part of any greater holistic change/policy advocacy/etc on the part of the corporation.

            On the one hand, it can be written off as silly - or more likely - cynical. On the other, having movement in inches may be better than nothing. It's that depressing victory of the activist, where it really can come down to a glass half full or empty.

      2. i
        INDIANRIVERFL RE: ipsedixit Apr 2, 2013 01:08 PM

        Great. My chocolate bar is going to get smaller and I am suppose to feel better about it.

        2 Replies
        1. re: INDIANRIVERFL
          h
          HillJ RE: INDIANRIVERFL Apr 2, 2013 01:37 PM

          Likely pay a bit more money too.

          1. re: HillJ
            w
            wonderwoman RE: HillJ Apr 4, 2013 11:26 AM

            yup... growing up, chocolate bars were a full ounce and cost a nickel, a can of coffee was measured in pounds...

            the more things change, the more they stay the same...

        2. Kris in Beijing RE: ipsedixit Apr 2, 2013 09:44 PM

          So, start watching for the things you buy [that come in containers] to have stickers over the oz/gm labels that say
          20% more free!!!
          Then a downsized container and contents, at the same price, in a few months.

          Show Hidden Posts