The new Puritans: Food Bullies . . .

No it doesn't . . . can you really be that naive? Products which are carb-free or gluten-free sell at a premium because they're catering to the fad. Foods which are allegedly "organically grown" sell at a premium because they're catering to the fad. Eggs which allegedly come from "free range" chickens sell at a premium because they're catering to the fad. (An "egg farmer" can increase one dimension of the brutal little cages the chickens are lodged in by 3" and then legally claim that the eggs are "free range.")

Not only that, but once they've jacked the price of one class of products, they will soon jack them all. When the no-carb thing was raging, and no-carb or low-carb pasta was being sold, it was literally a matter of days until they raised the price of plain old pasta. Living alone, it wasn't worth the effort to make my pasta from scratch, and very likely would't have saved me any money (ever try to efficiently make a four ounce batch of pasta?). So i was screwed--if i wanted an eight ounce bag of dried pasta, i had to bite the bullet and pay the new, higher price.

You can't just roll into a supermarket and expect that classic laws of economics apply. See also FM's remarks above . . .

I think you're on the right track.
So much of it really comes down to manipulation by the advertising systems.
We allow so much bullcrap, it's hard to know the truth.

Truly organic products are more expensive to raise, and at the same time, less profitable for the greedy middle man. So the markets get manipulated. The definitions get manipulated. The consumer gets duped, the middle man gets rich.

You can't get pasture finished beef at the grocery store, no matter what they tell you. The farmer can't afford to do that. He can only finish a little beef himself and survive economically. You can only get it direct or from a trustworthy butcher, and it's expensive.
The ruse you described with the chickens is what you get in the store, and you're right, the proffiteers take advantage to raise the bottom line across the board. The middleman wins again.
That angus beef? Any black steer sells as angus.

That's not how marketing/sales works.

I saw the series on the chef trying to improve school food in South Carolina. (I think it was South Carolina.)

The biggest problem to overcome was the stupid dietary rules in place. They (the powers-that-be) consider potatoes (and, as an extension, french fries) to be a vegetable. They must have two servings of vegetables, so kids get a big heap of french fries, and the school is covered, legally, and the kids were screwed nutritionally.

Aberdeen angus have been so watered down in their breeding within herds that "certified" angus only means that the steer was 51% black. A Belted Galloway will be sold as an angus, as will Simmenthals and black herefords that are stud by a black bull.

The real angus breed really has little meaning to anyone except the market managers at McDonalds and other places that cell "Angus burgers".
People are totally ignorant of their meats and poultries.

Don't bully us with your facts.

That's why I buy organic fruits and veg... at the farmers market. Cut out the middle-man. He's useless for this anyway.

Same with meat. I buy good-quality meat, and it is expensive. But then again, it's supposed to be expensive. The idea that good quality ANYTHING is cheap is an odd idea indeed.

Cycloptichorn

Eyep.

That was Jamie Oliver and West Virginia.

He's running into road blocks in California right now on the same sort of effort.

Oops, I take that back - it is mostly about the filming for a reality series and the portrayal of the school system..
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-lausd-20110204,0,1843978.story

I wish to reiterate (with a nod to Ceili) that i understand and don't object to selling these products to those who need them. My objection is the bandwagon mentality which means that people who don't need them buy them anyway, with a consequent rise in price for all of us on all producgts in a class, and likely decrease in the range of the products which are being replaced.

I think that is because "gluten free" is suddenly getting lumped together with other supposedly healthier eating choices--lower fat, lower salt, lower sugar, lower calories, and higher fiber, for example--when, for most people, gluten is not a health concern.

The current "bandwagon" is to promote healthier eating--to help combat tendencies toward obesity and obesity-liked ailments like diabetes, and to help prevent problems like heart disease. So, manufacturers tout certain alleged beneficial qualities in their products so people can feel good about eating them and can feel they are doing something good for themselves by purchasing and ingesting these products. It's a marketing ploy that dovetails with the current trends.

Yesterday, while standing on the supermarket check-out line, I found myself next to a display of canned soup that was on sale. The idea of some soup with half a sandwich sounded like a good idea for lunch, and the varieties on sale were the "light" and "lower sodium" types. Because canned soup tends to be so outrageously high in salt, I now only buy those that have reduced sodium, and only buy them when they are on sale, so, being hungry and receptive, I picked up two cans, one of which was this one...

Notice, this soup's label not only identifies it as "Reduced Sodium", the red band around the top announces "May Help Lower Cholesterol" and a big red heart on the lower left side tells me it's "Heart Healthy". Progresso is telling me that it's a veritable health food in a can. True, it does contain veggies, and some beans, so it has decent fiber, which makes it a beneficial choice, but I seriously doubt that my eating it will produce any dramatic difference in the state of my health.

On the side of the can, the list of healthful virtues is repeated for emphasis, with a few additions:
Reduced Sodium
100 Calories Per Serving
Good Source of Fiber
Low Fat
Gluten Free
No Artificial Flavors
No MSG Added

Now that list is mainly of things that "healthful eaters" want less of in their foods, or, in the case of fiber, something they might want more of. But why is "gluten-free" on that particular list? Why is "gluten free" suddenly being deliberately associated with better, more healthful eating? Is gluten in the diet a negative thing--something everyone should be concerned about, even those who don't suffer from celiac disease?

Now I would have no problem with "gluten free" being mentioned elsewhere on the label, but, what bothers me is its inclusion in that list of allegedly healthy attributes. This is a subtle form of associative conditioning--to get people to think of "gluten free" as a desirable attribute in food. Is there any real evidence to back that up? Is this just a promotional gimmick both to sell products and to create a demand for gluten free items?

I don't know that this trend will cause a rise in prices of products containing gluten, or that gluten free products will crowd other items off the shelves, but I agree with you, Setanta, that a bandwagon mentality among manufacturers might try to sell these products to those who don't need them, but who might be willing to pay higher prices for them because they think they are "healthier".

Actually, some people say that following a gluten free diet can be bad, if you don't have celiac disease or an allergy.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2010/05/22/2010-05-22_following_glutenfree_diet_without_having_celiac_disease_can_be_harmful_to_health.html
It's like when they reduced fat in some prepackaged bakery products, it was replaced with increased sugar--so just blindly following these trends does not necessarily ensure more healthful eating.

It's good that you reiterate what you approve of others doing and not doing. We need to know which people get your approval to purchase products with their own money.


So your objection is that people purchase foods that they don't need, and that their demand on these foods impacts the price of other goods?

I hardly believe that you could say that every food item you buy is out of necessity. We buy food that appeal to us for a number of reasons. You seem to draw an artificial designation upon these products as being a part of a "fad." If their is demand for gluten free pasta, the markets will try and meet that demand. "Need" doesn't factor in for GF pasta anymore than a box of Oreos.

People are free to purchase what they wish if they can. You objection is stupid. The prices of the products we buy has never been static and have always been related to the availability and demand of other goods. Odd to call others puritans, when you're complaining about your dietary orthodoxy being challenged.

I doubt you've had any problem finding regular pasta. Has the price gone up on your pasta Set? Can you tell me a dollar amount? I don't eat GF pasta, and the pasta I buy hasn't gone up in price. So what's all the huff and puff?

A
R
T

I haven't read the new USDA dietary guidelines, but they changed in late 2010. Potatoes and things like frenched fries are not concidered a serving of vegetables.

I think this example got a great deal of press with the Jamie Oliver show and also diet and exercise programs for youth have been a pet project of Michelle Obama.

A
R
T

Exactly. Supermarkets are commercial enterprises. Their shelf space goes to what they believe they can sell. This is based on demand. If their is three shelves devoted to pasta, and a demand has risen for GF pasta, they are likely to make space on the shelf to accommodate the product if they believe it will sell. It's not their job to maintain regular pasta at a static price.

A
R
T

I wonder how much of a 'fad' gluten-free (and all the rest of them) is and how many people buy it who don't actually need to. I've never bought it and I've never bought a soy product (ugh) for myself.

As far as sugar and salt free or low salt products - yes, yes and yes, but that's because I don't have a sweet tooth and don't care for salt too much.

And some of the new products, for example - wild rice pastas - I really like. Not necessarily trying to be healthier because we don't eat a lot of carbs/starches, but I like the taste. I'm glad that option is out there and finally more readily available.

Will they ever, or have they, come up with a salt-free salt? lol Probably they have!

I see it this way also.

You'd be amazed at what soy is put in. Corn and soy are put into an incredible amount of commercial products. It would be pretty hard to avoid all soy products.

A
R
T

well, that and who ever is willing to pay the most for the shelf space. They run on rev to the company per year per liner foot of shelf, quantity of sales is only part of the equation.

Oh, I am not against soy per se... but soy burgers, soy milk, soy cheese, etc - if it's in something and I can't taste it, fine, otherwise, bleeeeeeech!!!

and for how long they will buy...anyone remember "fat free" or "Lactose free" or "sugar free" or "low carb"?? You can still find some such products, but nothing like at the height of the fad. "gluten free" suffers from the same defect as all the other fads, which is that the products dont taste very good. People who dont need the adulterated products will go back to the real thing eventually.