Tc
Thu, Apr-28-05, 16:28
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_-
id=3909472
Pyramid selling
Apr 28th 2005
>From The Economist print edition
Rebranding America's diet
TRYING to get Americans to eat a healthy diet is a
frustrating business. Even the best-designed public-health
campaigns cannot seem to compete with the tempting flavours
of the snack-food and fast-food industries and their fat- and
sugar-laden products. The results are apparent on a walk down
any American street-more than 60% of Americans are
overweight, and a full quarter of them are overweight to the
point of obesity.
Now, health advocates say, an ill-conceived redesign has taken
one of the more successful public-health campaigns-the Food
Guide Pyramid-and rendered it confusing to the point of
uselessness. Some of these critics worry that America's
Department of Agriculture caved in to pressure from parts of
the food industry anxious to protect their products.
The Food Guide Pyramid was a graphic which emphasises that a
healthy diet is built on a base of grains, vegetables and
fruits, followed by ever-decreasing amounts of dairy products,
meat, sweets and oils. The agriculture department launched the
pyramid in 1992 to replace its previous programme, which was
centred on the idea of four basic food groups. The "Basic
Four" campaign showed a plate divided into quarters, and
seemed to imply that meat and dairy products should make up
half of a healthy diet, with grains, fruits and vegetables
making up the other half. It was replaced only over the
strenuous objections of the meat and dairy industries.
United States
Health
Food and drink
MyPyramid.gov, created by the Department of Agriculture,
explains the new US food pyramid and publishes the "Dietary
Guidelines for Americans 2005". Wikipedia provides information
and links about the 1992 food guide pyramid. See also the
Potato Board, the Almond Board of California, the Sugar
Association, the National Food Processors Association, the
National Watermelon Promotion Board and the California Avocado
Commission.
The old pyramid was undoubtedly imperfect. It failed to
distinguish between a doughnut and a whole-grain roll, or a
hamburger and a skinless chicken breast, and it did not make
clear exactly how much of each foodstuff to eat. It did,
however, manage to convey the basic idea of proper
proportions in an easily understandable way. The new pyramid,
called "My Pyramid", abandons the effort to provide this
information. Instead, it has been simplified to a mere logo.
The food groups are replaced with unlabelled, multi-coloured
vertical stripes which, in some versions, rise out of a
cartoon jumble of foods that look like the aftermath of a
riot at a grocery store. Anyone who wants to see how this
translates into a healthy diet is invited to go to a website,
put in their age, sex and activity level, and get a
custom-designed pyramid, complete with healthy food choices
and suggested portion sizes. This is fine for those who are
motivated, but might prove too much effort for those who most
need such information.
Admittedly, the designers of the new pyramid had a tough job
to do. They were supposed to condense the advice in the
84-page United States' Dietary Guidelines into a simple,
meaningful graphic suitable for printing on the back of a
cereal box. And they had to do this in the face of pressure
from dozens of special interest groups-from the country's
Potato Board, which thought potatoes would look nice in the
picture, to the Almond Board of California, which felt the
same way about almonds. The Sugar Association did not want to
see sucrose bad-mouthed, and the National Food Processors
Association thought packaged foods should get more respect.
Vegetarians wanted meat struck off, and Atkins diet advocates
suggested dumping the carbs. Even the National Watermelon
Promotion Board and the California Avocado Commission were
eager to see their products recognised.
Nevertheless, many health advocates believe the new
graphic is a missed opportunity. Although officials insist
industry pressure had nothing to do with the eventual
design, some critics suspect that political influence was
at work. On the other hand, it is not clear how much good
even the best graphic could do. Surveys found that 80% of
Americans recognised the old Food Guide Pyramid-a big
success in the world of public-health campaigns. Yet only
16% followed its advice
--
TC
id=3909472
Pyramid selling
Apr 28th 2005
>From The Economist print edition
Rebranding America's diet
TRYING to get Americans to eat a healthy diet is a
frustrating business. Even the best-designed public-health
campaigns cannot seem to compete with the tempting flavours
of the snack-food and fast-food industries and their fat- and
sugar-laden products. The results are apparent on a walk down
any American street-more than 60% of Americans are
overweight, and a full quarter of them are overweight to the
point of obesity.
Now, health advocates say, an ill-conceived redesign has taken
one of the more successful public-health campaigns-the Food
Guide Pyramid-and rendered it confusing to the point of
uselessness. Some of these critics worry that America's
Department of Agriculture caved in to pressure from parts of
the food industry anxious to protect their products.
The Food Guide Pyramid was a graphic which emphasises that a
healthy diet is built on a base of grains, vegetables and
fruits, followed by ever-decreasing amounts of dairy products,
meat, sweets and oils. The agriculture department launched the
pyramid in 1992 to replace its previous programme, which was
centred on the idea of four basic food groups. The "Basic
Four" campaign showed a plate divided into quarters, and
seemed to imply that meat and dairy products should make up
half of a healthy diet, with grains, fruits and vegetables
making up the other half. It was replaced only over the
strenuous objections of the meat and dairy industries.
United States
Health
Food and drink
MyPyramid.gov, created by the Department of Agriculture,
explains the new US food pyramid and publishes the "Dietary
Guidelines for Americans 2005". Wikipedia provides information
and links about the 1992 food guide pyramid. See also the
Potato Board, the Almond Board of California, the Sugar
Association, the National Food Processors Association, the
National Watermelon Promotion Board and the California Avocado
Commission.
The old pyramid was undoubtedly imperfect. It failed to
distinguish between a doughnut and a whole-grain roll, or a
hamburger and a skinless chicken breast, and it did not make
clear exactly how much of each foodstuff to eat. It did,
however, manage to convey the basic idea of proper
proportions in an easily understandable way. The new pyramid,
called "My Pyramid", abandons the effort to provide this
information. Instead, it has been simplified to a mere logo.
The food groups are replaced with unlabelled, multi-coloured
vertical stripes which, in some versions, rise out of a
cartoon jumble of foods that look like the aftermath of a
riot at a grocery store. Anyone who wants to see how this
translates into a healthy diet is invited to go to a website,
put in their age, sex and activity level, and get a
custom-designed pyramid, complete with healthy food choices
and suggested portion sizes. This is fine for those who are
motivated, but might prove too much effort for those who most
need such information.
Admittedly, the designers of the new pyramid had a tough job
to do. They were supposed to condense the advice in the
84-page United States' Dietary Guidelines into a simple,
meaningful graphic suitable for printing on the back of a
cereal box. And they had to do this in the face of pressure
from dozens of special interest groups-from the country's
Potato Board, which thought potatoes would look nice in the
picture, to the Almond Board of California, which felt the
same way about almonds. The Sugar Association did not want to
see sucrose bad-mouthed, and the National Food Processors
Association thought packaged foods should get more respect.
Vegetarians wanted meat struck off, and Atkins diet advocates
suggested dumping the carbs. Even the National Watermelon
Promotion Board and the California Avocado Commission were
eager to see their products recognised.
Nevertheless, many health advocates believe the new
graphic is a missed opportunity. Although officials insist
industry pressure had nothing to do with the eventual
design, some critics suspect that political influence was
at work. On the other hand, it is not clear how much good
even the best graphic could do. Surveys found that 80% of
Americans recognised the old Food Guide Pyramid-a big
success in the world of public-health campaigns. Yet only
16% followed its advice
--
TC