Elster Literature Review, March 2015

NutritionMarketingEthics 1
Running Head: NUTRITON MARKETING ETHICS
The Ethical Nature of Marketing and the Nutritional Aspects of Packaged Food Products
Tia Elster
Daemen College

The ethical nature of marketing and the nutritional aspects of packaged food products is a
multifaceted and complex issue. There is nothing inherently wrong with marketing, and
companies have a right to advertise the characteristics and aspects of their products. The issue
becomes more complicated as nutrition and health are added into the mix, as companies often
prioritize their bottom line and shareholders even at the expense of their customer’s health. Often
when this comes into question, the companies state that consumers have a choice when
purchasing products and therefore it is entirely appropriate for them to provide said options.
Within this literature review, several articles will be used to bring into question the ethical nature
of food marketing and its nutritional components. Articles will include a mix of both the hard
and soft sciences, as both must be used in conjunction to evaluate the issue at hand.
Several decades ago, the rise of television began the rise of national and highly strategic
marketing. In the past, a television commercial was considered the epitome of a marketing effort
- nowadays, marketing in the food industry can be as discrete as a strategic location within a
hospital, or information on a government regulated food label. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in the United States controls the legal regulation of processed food
product labeling, and has allowed the use of health and nutrient claims on government regulated
packaging (Colby, Johnson, Scheett, & Hoverson, 2010). The FDA allows “nutrient content
claims such as ‘100% vitamin C’ or ‘good source of protein’ without evidence-based research
supporting a link to disease prevention,” and a health claim is allowed on packaging so long as
there is an agreement between a “sufficient” number of scientists (Colby et al, 2010). The degree
of vagueness within the FDA health and nutrient claim regulations could lead to products being
able to use nutrition marketing without due cause. It should be noted that there is a difference in

the eyes of the FDA between a nutrient content claim, and a health claim. A health claim
specifies a disease in which the food product in question can prevent, such as cardiovascular
disease. A nutrient claim is anything referring to the nutrient content, and it can strongly imply
health connections. As more and more people hear of connections between nutrients and disease,
they often make their own assumptions and mistake a nutrient claim for a health claim. This is
both highly unethical for marketers and companies to utilize, but it is also negligent of the FDA
to allow these nutrient claims on packaging. This use of discrete marketing has been magnified
due to the rising health trends and the gravitation towards what a consumer believes is a health
promoting product. Along with these rises in health trends, we have seen a correlation between
perceived health benefits and the likelihood of purchase increase (Colby et al, 2010). While this
marketing tactic is no doubt effective, food marketing strategies often target children which were
exemplified by the research conducted in a grocery store in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
This research analyzed all packaged products in grocery stores located within Grand Forks, ND.
There were a total of six grocery stores surveyed, and these included four stores from a local
chain and two from regional chains (Colby et al, 2010). All aspects of the nutrient content were
evaluated (fats, sugar, etc.) and marketing strategies were recorded and categorized into
“statements of fact, structure/function claims, nutrient content claims, and/or US FDA health
claims” (Colby et al, 2010). Out of the 9,105 products present in the grocery store that were
targeted to children, 71% of them contained nutrition marketing (Colby et al, 2010). While this is
not unethical in and of itself, 59% of the products with nutrition marketing were high in sodium,
saturated fat, and/or sugar (Colby et al, 2010).

Sugar in and of itself is a necessary component for the human body to function. In its natural
state, sugar is healthy and is often paired with fiber and water to slow digestion and absorption
into the bloodstream (Gearhardt, Roberts, & Ashe, 2013). In processed foods, this naturally
occurring sugar has been refined so that all the accompanying macro and micronutrients have
been removed and only the sugar component remains. In addition to removing the nutrients that
slow absorption, refined sugar is highly concentrated and used in amounts that would not be
naturally occurring within nature (Gearhardt et al, 2013). In the past, sugary and high calorie
foods were considered a rarity, and as a result our bodies adapted to find them more enjoyable to
“increase the chance of survival in times of famine” (Gearhardt et al, 2013). Companies often
utilize this by adding excessive amounts of highly refined and concentrated sugar to their food
products, which we naturally seek out and often develop addictions after enough exposure. In
order to study the level of addiction caused by sugar, researchers exposed rats to both sugar and
cocaine to the point where they were physiologically dependent on said substances (Gearhardt et
al, 2013). When forced to choose between the two substances, the rats often chose the sugar
(Gearhardt et al, 2013). In a separate study conducted using rats who had regular exposure to
sugar, researchers observed that the rats would continuously try to eat the sugar despite receiving
electric shocks while eating (Gearhardt et al, 2013). This is a common behavior associated with
substance dependence and addiction (Gearhardt et al, 2013).
Despite the risk of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes (Gearhardt et al, 2013), companies often
advocate the use of sugar in children’s cereal to better boost their marketing potential and to
appeal to the taste preferences of children (Baltas, 2001). Children are not as able to make
informed purchasing decisions, and it is an accepted public fact that children have a large sway

on a parent’s purchasing power. The inability to make an informed purchasing decision coupled
with a sugar addiction is a lethal combination, and could be a potential cause behind the surge in
childhood diabetes and disease within the United States. Some parties could argue that it is still
the parent’s decision when it comes to purchasing foods for their children, and that it is their
choice to perpetuate the problem. However, it should be noted that companies often use nutrition
labeling marketing to give parents the impression that they are purchasing healthy choices for
their children. The mixture of a sugar addicted child and a parent who believes they are making a
healthy purchasing decision is the reason why nutrition marketing has become so dangerous to
consumers.
Nutritional labeling has become very prominent for marketing purposes within the food market,
and has become very successful due to its discrete nature. As the American public becomes more
aware of nutritional labels, people look to nutrition content to make informed and healthy
purchasing decisions. Research has shown that there are significant correlations between
nutrition content found on labels, and between positive purchasing decisions (Baltas, 2001).
Using a “utility-consistent model of purchase behavior,” Baltas compared both nutrition and
taste factor influences on a variety of macronutrients such as sugar, protein, sodium, fat,
vitamins, minerals, and fiber (Baltas, 2001). Baltas found that in products with adequate levels of
protein, vitamins, minerals and fiber, there was a more probable chance of brand purchase
(Baltas, 2001). These purchases can be attributed to the fact that a consumer most likely thought
they were making a healthy purchasing choice. Conversely, consumers were willing to trade off
nutrient content for flavor and as result products high in sugar and/or sodium were also more

likely to be purchased by a consumer - despite the known health risks (Baltas, 2001). This can in
part be attributed to sugar’s addictive nature (Gearhardt et al, 2013).
Nutrition labeling is a widely used marketing tactic, but it is not the only one within a food
marketer’s repertoire. Consumers often reference the nutrition facts of processed foods in order
to gauge the health benefits associated with it, but some companies have resorted to other
methods of implying healthiness in their products. Businesses have been focusing more strongly
on healthy image marketing due to the rising health food trends, and McDonalds is no exception.
Even without a traditional marketing campaign, McDonalds has boosted their healthy image by
locating some of their fast food locals within hospitals (Binns, Meadow, Sahud, & Tanz, 2006).
A research group studied 200 hospitals with pediatric residencies, and they found that fifty nine
of them had fast food restaurants operating within the confines of the hospital (Binns et al, 2006).
Choosing three separate hospital locations, “hospital M with an on-site McDonald's restaurant,
hospital R without McDonald's on site but with McDonald's branding, and hospital X with
neither on-site McDonald's nor branding,” the team then surveyed 386 outpatients and analyzed
the results (Binns et al, 2006). Utilizing these surveys, they were able to discover that the
presence of any McDonalds branding led consumers to believe that McDonald’s was financially
supporting the hospital. In the instance of an actual McDonald’s presence, consumers rated the
food as being healthier in relation to consumers at hospitals without a McDonalds (Binns et al,
2006).
This research brings to light the psychological ramifications of store location, and that traditional
marketing efforts are not necessary in order to warp consumer perception. The results of the

analysis also imply that McDonalds is more centered around acquiring consumers, as opposed
remaining focused on ethics. It is an accepted fact among the public that McDonalds is not a
healthy food choice, so it appears that their marketing team is focusing on reshaping that image.
They are doing this not by food changes, but by association. This is highly dangerous to the
wellbeing of the general public, as consumers may feel that the decision to eat McDonalds
regularly is a healthy choice. It is also concerning that there is an increasing amount of
McDonald’s storefronts in hospitals with pediatric residencies. Having a child in the hospital is
an exceptionally stressful event for a family, and the idea of a quick and inexpensive meal
combined with a healthier perception could make families more at risk of eating McDonalds
regularly. While this would be ideal for McDonald’s profits, it is not ideal for the health of the
general public or our children.
While many food companies are merely trying to change the perception of how unhealthy their
products are, some corporations have attempted to create an actual healthy product to sell to their
consumers. More often than not, companies latch onto a health “buzzword” and center their
product on that. A buzzword is a term that is being referenced in an above average amount, and
the term antioxidant would be a good example. In general, most people do not actually know
what an antioxidant is or what it protects against – they merely know that it is good for you.
When it comes to the use of nutrient claims, the FDA has set specific guidelines for marketing
antioxidant properties. Firstly, when using a “High Potency!” claim, the actual nutrient in
question must equal or exceed 100% of the Reference Daily Intake (RDI) suggested for the
nutrient (Food and Drug Administration, 2008). In fact, when it specifically comes to an

antioxidant nutrient claim, the antioxidant component must have an RDI set by the government
in order to be advertised (Food and Drug Administration, 2008). Vitamin A, Vitamin C, Vitamin
E, and Selenium are recognized antioxidants that have RDIs established (Food Insight, 2009),
and therefore can be used for marketing purposes.
The FDA has also set specific guidelines for the terminology used in antioxidant nutrient claims.
When using the terminology “High in Antioxidants,” the nutrient being cited must exceed 20%
of the RDI set forth for that specific nutrient (Food and Drug Administration, 2008). If a
packaged food was to reference Vitamin C as its source of antioxidants and wished to advertise it
as “High in…” the Vitamin C content must exceed 20% of the RDI. Vitamin C has an RDI of
15-90 mg/d (Food Insight, 2009), so a packaged food would need to equal or exceed 3-18mg of
Vitamin C in order to be viable for a statement of “High in Antioxidants.” Packaged goods
which do not meet this 20% cut off may still qualify for a “Good Source of Antioxidant” nutrient
claim. In order to advertise as a “Good Source of Antioxidants,” a packaged food must contain
10-19% of the RDI for the antioxidant component (Food and Drug Administration, 2008).
Vitamin C is the second most required antioxidant in a human body, at least when referencing
RDI amounts (Food Insight, 2009). Vitamin C makes a fairly regular appearance in packaged
foods, and it has been utilized for both vitamin and antioxidant nutrient claims. When it comes to
packaged foods, it is a known fact that a great deal of processing is involved whether it is simply
refining down to individual components or the use of heat to cook and sterilize products. This
often damages Vitamin C, as it is highly sensitive to thermal changes (Fraile & Burg, 1995).
Research to discover the sensitivity of Vitamin C was conducted utilizing potatoes and five

separate cooking methods that involved the use of heat. Utilizing a microwave oven, a free and
forced convection oven, a pressure cooker, and a superheated steam oven, scientists would cook
the potatoes according to the relevant cooking times and would observe the Vitamin C content of
each potato (Fraile & Burg, 1995). Regardless of the cooking method used, Vitamin C content
dropped by 30% on average (Fraile & Burg, 1995). Other factors increased Vitamin C
destruction, such as lack of water, exposure to air, and continued application of heat beyond the
relevant cooking time (Fraile & Burg, 1995).
Using this knowledge for a practical application, we will evaluate a Planters product entitled
Nut-Rition Mix Antioxidant Mix. It states directly on the packaging that it is a “Good Source of
Vitamin C & E” (Planters), which would place it in the 10-19% RDI antioxidant range for both
Vitamin C & E. Looking directly at the nutrition labeling, it is stated that the Nut-Rition
Antioxidant Mix contains 10% of the RDI for Vitamin C (Planters). This technically falls within
the range established by the FDA for a “Good Source…” nutrient claim, but as previously
established Vitamin C suffers from degradation during processing. Following along the average
Vitamin C destruction of 30% (Fraile & Burg, 1995), we can infer that Nut-Rition Antioxidant
Mix actually only contains 7% of the RDI for Vitamin C. The general public lacks the in-depth
knowledge of nutrition to evaluate food labels in such a way, and is being misled by this
particular nutrient claim.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) specifically prohibits the use of false advertisements to
induce a customer to purchase foods (Federal Trade Commission, 1983). The FTC goes on to
further elaborate, and they define a false advertisement as “misleading in a material aspect”
(Federal Trade Commission, 1983). The misrepresentation of a nutrient claim could fall under

false advertisement, especially when one is considering that the use of antioxidant claims is
regulated by the FDA. In the instance of the Nut-Rition Antioxidant Mix, the level of Vitamin C
within the product after processing is not adequate to fit regulation, and the misuse of a legally
regulated marketing claim is highly unethical.
Food products directly influence the health of an individual, and many consumers understand
nutritional claims to be facts about the food product. Making a consumer falsely believe that they
are meeting the nutritional needs of their body is not only unethical, but inhumane and possibly
life threatening over a long period of time. Not every company uses false advertising to entice a
customer to purchase a product, but sometimes questionable additives will be used to reduce the
nutrient content so that low calorie advertisements can be used.
Olestra is a widely used fat substitute that is incompatible with the human body, and cannot be
digested or absorbed (Hunt, Zorich, & Thomson, 1998). Due to this lack of absorption, Olestra
can be used as an ingredient in food to affect flavor without contributing calories to a diet (Hunt
et al, 1998). A variety of companies such as Pringles use Olestra to create fat-free products
(Pringles, 2015), and companies have utilized this for a nutrient content claims in their
marketing. Observing the Pringles Original Fat-Free can, all of the on package marketing is
being directed towards its fat-free nutrition status. In addition to using “Fat-Free” in the name,
Pringles has a slogan on the top stating “100% Satisfaction, 0% Guilt!” (Pringles, 2015). The
term “50% fewer calories” is also utilized on the package (Pringles, 2015). This is directly
targeting body insecurities and making the consumer believe that they are eating healthier, but
they are merely eating things that are not meant to be ingested. Olestra has no nutrient value to

our bodies because we cannot break it down, but it does inhibit the absorption of Vitamin A,
Vitamin D, Vitamin E, and Vitamin K (Hunt et al, 1998). In fact, to counteract this effect
products with Olestra are required to be fortified with vitamins in order to be fit for human
consumption (Hunt et al, 1998).
Olestra could be praised as a step forward for modern food, but the ethical nature of using a
compound that is incompatible with the human body must be questioned. Olestra provides no
value to a consumer’s body, and in fact detracts from the health of the body due to disrupting
vitamin absorption. A company has no need to add this to a product beyond gaining access to
new advertisements such as “Fat-Free!” Additionally, it perpetuates the thought that we should
feel guilty for what we eat and could validate the thought behind some eating disorders.
The majority of this literature review has been focusing on foods which are utilizing some sort of
marketing method to appear healthier. The discrepancies between what is advertised and the
actual nutrient content are easier to pinpoint, but some products toe the line of ethics even
without attempting to appear healthy. Certain products which make no claim of being healthy
could be considered unethical just by being on the market due to the effects that it has on the
body.
Ramen, a culturally notorious food for college students, is an inexpensive option for those on a
tight budget. Packaged Ramen is quick and easy to make, and combined with its affordability it
is a staple of many young adults’ diets. Maruchan is one of the leading producers of packaged
Ramen, and its marketers make no claims of high nutritional value beyond the fact that it

contains 0 grams of Trans Fat (Maruchan, 2009). Two individuals, Stefani Bardin and Dr.
Braden Kuo, became curious about the digestive capabilities of the human body in relation to
both processed Ramen and homemade Ramen noodles (Darrisaw, 2012). Two trial studies were
conducted in which volunteers consumed either processed Ramen or homemade noodles, and
afterwards they swallowed a small camera which allowed researchers to observe the digestive
process (Darrisaw, 2012). This preliminary study was quite small, but there were immediate
differences between the two products and digestion (Darrisaw, 2012). Dr. Kuo stated to USA
Today that “at two and four hours, the particular size of the Ramen noodle was much larger or
formed than the homemade Ramen noodle at each of those time points, suggesting Ramen
noodles were difficult to break down into extremely infinite particulate matter during the process
of digestion,” (Darrisaw, 2012). Digestion in the human body is not meant to be backed up, and
the difficulties of removing the processed Ramen and its dietary components could cause long
term harm to the body in the form of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension
(Darrisaw, 2012).
While Maruchan certainly avoids the use of health or nutrition claims on their packaging and
marketing, they are neglecting the health of any consumers they may have. Eating one package
of processed Ramen will certainly not cause disease, but a semi-regular consumption could
possibly damage their body and cause life threatening illnesses. Bardin stated to USA Today that
“this is about taking into consideration what’s in your food, what’s available to you and being
able to allow the public to make more informed choices, which is something our current labeling
system and our food system doesn’t make readily accessible,” (Darrisaw, 2012).

The public tends to perpetuate the idea that food marketing is ethical, after all, individuals have a
choice when it comes to their purchasing habits and what they eat. However, food companies
specifically put high levels of refined sugar in their foods to appeal to our taste pallet and utilize
its addictive qualities, and this is especially common in children’s foods. Many United States
citizens unknowingly have developed an addiction to sugar, which these companies perpetuate in
order to keep sales high. While consumers often know that products high in sugar, salt, and fat
are bad for their health, marketers step in and use nutrition claims such as “Good Source of
Vitamin C!” to create a trade-off within the consumer’s mind. However, many of these nutrition
statements are made in error which goes unchecked by the FDA. In order for a packaged food
product to be viable on the market, it must have a longer shelf-life. This involves pasteurization,
refining, the use of chemicals, and several other methods of food processing. Referring back to
the Vitamin C claim, which could also be used as a “Good Source of Antioxidants!” statement,
on average 30% of Vitamin C nutritional content is destroyed upon any application of heat. This
goes entirely unaccounted for on the nutrition labelling or statements, and is in some ways false
advertising. This also leads the consumer to a false impression that packaged food products are a
viable comparison to naturally occurring foods, especially given the fact that they often contain
“more” vitamins, nutrients, protein, or carbohydrates. The nutritional content in a packaged food
is usually indigestible, incompatible with the human body, or otherwise is so concentrated that it
causes an addiction that rivals cocaine.
As the current food market stands, the vast majority of nutritional marketing is highly unethical.
Many products are addictive, could cause long term disease if consumed regularly, or utilize
false advertisements. While there are technically regulations surrounding some aspects of

nutritional marketing, the general wording is vague and the FDA rarely follows up on nutrient
content claims. This allows companies to manipulate consumers into having a false impression
of what they are putting into their bodies. Ethically, the entire food industry is in dire need of
intervention less the health of our nation is further affected.
There are no inherent flaws within these studies, but each study is far too narrow to make an
impact on policy surrounding food marketing and the nutrition of packaged goods. On its own,
each article makes the issues at hand seem minor and insignificant. When considering the full
picture, the gravity of the situation becomes apparent and more accurately reflects the reasons
there have been dramatic increases in chronic diseases and health concerns in the United States.
Unregulated nutrient claims allow companies to give their products the appearance of being
healthy, despite these claims often being factually unsound.
While this information is centered on nutrition marketing efforts and the nutritional components
of packaged food products, this is most valuable to those who make health policies in the United
States. Ideally, this research would be used by a scientist/nutritionist when consulting with a
government official in the health sector. It could be referenced when creating laws regarding
advertising and food products directed at children, the use of addictive substances in foods, the
regulation of nutrition claims, and many other components. This is a multifaceted issue that will
most likely arise with frequency over the next several years, especially as American health
continues to drop as a whole. In order to further address the issue, more elaborate research must
be conducted.

References
American Dietetic Association. (2003). Position of the American Dietetic Association, Society
for Nutrition Education, and American School Food Service Association--Nutrition
services: an essential component of comprehensive school health programs. (ADA
Reports). Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 505.
Baltas, G. (2001). The effects of nutrition information on consumer choice. Journal of
Advertising Research, 57.
Binns, H. J., Meadow, W. L., Sahud, H. B., & Tanz, R. R. (2006). Marketing fast food: impact of
fast food restaurants in children's hospitals. Pediatrics, 2290.
Colby, S. E., Johnson, L., Scheett, A., & Hoverson, B. (2010). Nutrition marketing on food
labels. Journal of Nutrition Education & Behavior, 92-98.
Darrisaw, L. (2012, June 23). Breaking down Ramen noodles, literally. Retrieved from USA
Today: http://college.usatoday.com/2012/06/23/breaking-down-ramen-noodles-literally/
Federal Trade Commission. (1983). FTC Policy Statement on Deception. Retrieved from Federal
Trade Commission: http://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/1983/10/ftc-policy-statement-
deception
Food and Drug Administration. (2008, July 18). Guidance for Industry: Food Labeling; Nutrient
Content Claims; Definition for “High Potency” and Definition for “Antioxidant” for Use
in Nutrient Content Claims for Dietary Supplements and Conventional Foods; Small
Entity Compliance Guide. Retrieved from U.S. Food and Drug Administration:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformati
on/LabelingNutrition/ucm063064.htm

Food Insight. (2009, October 14). Functional Foods Fact Sheet: Antioxidants. Retrieved from
Food Insight: http://www.foodinsight.org/Functional_Foods_Fact_Sheet_Antioxidants
Fraile, P., & Burg, P. (1995). Vitamin C destruction during the cooking of a potato dish. LWT -
Food Science and Technology, 506-514.
Gearhardt, A., Roberts, M., & Ashe, M. (2013). If sugar is addictive, what does it mean for the
law? Journal of Law, Medicine, & Ethics, 46-49.
Hunt, R. H., Zorich, N. L., & Thomson, A. R. (1998). Review article: olestra and its
gastrointestinal safety. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 1185-1200.
Maruchan. (2009). Ramen. Retrieved from Maruchan:
http://www.maruchan.com/maruchan_ramen.html
Nestle, M. (2013). Food Politics: How The Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.
London: University of California Press.
Planters. (n.d.). NUT-RITION MIX ANTIOXIDANT. Retrieved from Planters:
http://www.planters.com/varieties/nutrition-
information.aspx?Site=1&Product=2900001437
Pringles. (2015). Pringles Fat-Free Original. Retrieved from Pringles:
http://www.pringles.com/en_US/products/lighter-side/fat-free/original.html

Elster Literature Review, March 2015

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (7)

Similar to Elster Literature Review, March 2015

Similar to Elster Literature Review, March 2015 (20)

Elster Literature Review, March 2015