Discussion: Supermarket Semantics

For this discussion, you will read

“Supermarket Semantics”

Download “Supermarket Semantics”

and watch the “Three Appeals” video I posted in the Week Eight module. 

Using ideas from Supermarket Semantics, discuss the relationship between logic, emotion, and ethics found on the websites for

“Nature Valley”Links to an external site.

and

“Beyond Burger.”Links to an external site.

In particular, I want you to consider the emotional versus logical value of terms like “real fruit,” “meaty,” “plant based,” “no gluten,” “natural flavors,” and so on.

Is connotative language like this used to manipulate? Where is the line between a persuasive use of language and information and a dishonest one? (You may bring in connections with earlier discussions as well.) Finally, if an argument is successful, does it matter if it is honest or ethical? Why or why not?

Institute of General Semantics

SUPERMARKET SEMANTICS: The Rhetoric of Food

Labeling and Advertising

Author(s): Win Welford
Source: ETC: A Review of General Semantics, Vol. 49, No. 1 (Spring 1992), pp. 3-17
Published by: Institute of General Semantics
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42577327
Accessed: 20-09-2018 19:37 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42577327?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

Terms and Conditions of Use

Institute of General Semantics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to ETC: A Review of General Semantics

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Win Welford*

SUPERMARKET SEMANTICS:

The Rhetoric of Food

Labeling and Advertising

A RisTOTLE proposed this definition of rhetoric: “The faculty of
-^•discovering in the particular case all the available means
of persuasion.” (6, p. xxxvii) The “available means” have been
exploited to the fullest (in ways that Aristotle never dreamed)
by those who manufacture and market food products today.
In many cases they have mastered the sophistic art, which
was condemned by Plato, of “making the worse appear the
better reason.” (7, p. 539)

It should be quite obvious to almost every consumer that
an important rhetorical strategy employed by food manufac-
turers and marketers is that of directing their promotional
efforts at consumers’ health concerns. These concerns have

been heightened in recent years by a stream of pronounce-
ments issuing from numerous government and consumer
organizations. Such prestigious groups as the National Re-
search Council, the American Heart Association, the NCEP
Expert Panel on Population Strategies for Blood Cholesterol
Reduction, the Office of the U. S. Surgeon General, and the
National Cancer Institute have all encouraged us to select,

* Dr. Win Welford heads the Department of Communication at Southeastern
Louisiana University in Hammond, Louisiana.

3

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

4 Et cetera • Spring 1992

prepare, and consume foods low in saturated fatty acids, total
fat, and cholesterol. We are further reminded that compared
to many other countries, children and adults in the U. S. have
higher blood cholesterol levels, higher intakes of saturated
fatty acids and cholesterol, and higher rates of coronary heart
disease morbidity and mortality. (25, p. 4)
Due to extensive coverage by the media, we have become
a much better informed public, but also a more concerned
public. Articles abound telling us how to maintain healthy
eating habits. Some suggestions include: eating a variety of
foods; eating foods low in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol;
including an adequate amount of starch and fiber; and avoid-
ing too much sugar and too much salt. (24) While such sug-
gestions for proper eating have been widely publicized, their
implementation becomes quite a problem when the average
consumer tries to determine the nutritional ingredients of
various food products as stated by their marketers. The mat-
ter of buying well (in terms of health) is clouded all the more
by multi-million dollar labeling and advertising campaigns.
Most consumers are perplexed about how to interpret these
ads and labels. In response to a comment by John Cooper
(Executive VP-General Counsel for Young & Rubicam, New
York) about the intelligence and savvy of the American con-
sumer, Nancy S. Wellman, President of the American Dietetic
Association, replied, “Let’s play fair. Even the most savvy la-
bel reader and advertisement reader is being misled today
because the whole story isn’t being told.” (28, p. S-ll)
In campaigns to sell food, positively va la need words such
as “light,” “natural,” “fresh,” and “wholesome goodness” are
often seized upon and applied to food products. Negatively
valanced words such as “fat,” “cholesterol,” “sodium,” and
“sugar” are played down or turned into an advantage by us-
ing the terms with certain negators such as “cholesterol-free,”
“low-sodium,” and so forth. The technical meanings of such
descriptors are difficult for even the experts to decipher. “Let
the buyer beware” has been a popular maxim since antiquity.
However, the warning has become increasingly pertinent
when applied to current food advertising and labeling prac-
tices. (Note 1)

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Supermarket Semantics 5

Caught between the desire to eat nutritional foods on the
one hand, and the quagmire of confusion over the meanings
of food labeling and advertising claims on the other, consum-
ers become vulnerable to the strategies of marketers who tout
their products as beneficial to health. Familiarity with such
well-known names as Kellogg, Procter & Gamble, and
General Mills tends to build a degree of acceptance, and even
trust, in the minds of many customers. After all, these com-
panies have been in business for generations and are a part
of our heritage. Add to this the vague feeling held by many
that the federal government will protect us from harmful
substances in our food products, and you have a public “ripe
for the picking.” An atmosphere exists in which the average
consumer is easy prey for those who “trade on the range of
human infirmities.” (19, p. 97) Even the FDA’s own surveys
show that the public does not understand much about the
terms used on food labels. For example, only one in eight
understood terms like “polyunsaturated fat” and “hydrogéna-
tion.” (24, p. 39)
While it is true that the U. S. Department of Agriculture,
the Federal Trade Commission, and the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration do occasionally catch and prosecute code viola-
tors, the likelihood is far greater that many will never be
caught. Those who are caught are heralded in a number of
government publications. Two such cases were recently re-
ported. One involved Beech-Nut Corporation. It was found
that for years the company had been substituting flavored
colored water for apple juice. The company pleaded guilty
to 215 felony violations and was sentenced to pay fines total-
ing almost $2.2 million. Another case involved M&M Foods
of California. The owner was fined $100,000 and placed on
three years probation for allowing meat food products to be-
come adulterated by rodent feces and hair. (16, p. 15)
Although the apprehension and prosecution of food com-
panies who practice such gross violations of the public trust
is heartening, the more prevalent and insidious form of
deception still flourishes in the area of food advertising and
labeling. As many experts have concluded, labeling informa-
tion as it presently exists is incomplete, lacks uniformity, is
misleading, is confusing, and is complex. (29, p. 69) A re-

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

6 Et cetera • Spring 1992

newed vigor by the FDA and the FTC to find and prosecute
those who make false or misleading claims about their food
products is encouraging. (5, p. 53) However, it must be kept
in mind that policing a $350 billion food industry each year
with a limited staff is a difficult task. Under present govern-
ment regulations, approximately 30 percent of the food prod-
ucts regulated by the FDA are required to have nutritional
labels, another 30 percent carries the information voluntarily,
and the remaining 40 percent goes unlabeled. (33, p. 4)
The vast sums of money paid to agencies and individuals
to insure that certain food products will sell makes it prob-
able that trickery and deception will continue in spite of rein-
tensified efforts by the government. The best talent money
can buy is hired to develop slogans, strategies, and labels
guaranteed to strike a responsive chord in the minds of con-
sumers. For example, Chesebrough-Pond’s Ragu Foods
spent approximately $40 million in twenty-one months to
establish the name “Ragu Fresh.” As it turned out, the FDA
determined the pasta sauce was not fresh. The name of the
product was changed. (8, p. 1)
Marketers’ strategies are sophisticated, subtle, and effec-
tive. They know that such labels as “fresh,” “cholesterol-free,”
“all natural,” and “low sodium,” will appeal to consumers
who are both concerned and confused. The designers of
such strategies are aware of USDA, FDA, and FTC regu-
lations. They know what the law says and what it does not
say. They are masters at stretching the spirit of the law in
order to achieve their own objectives. Ambiguity is their ally
and innuendo their weapon. While it is not likely that com-
panies deliberately set out to violate the law, it is probable
that the profit motive significantly shapes their interpretation
of the law and diminishes their concern for the well-being of
the consumer. This does not necessarily mean that a compa-
ny would use a known poisonous substance as a preservative
in its canned vegetables in the place of a nonpoisonous one
simply because it was cheaper or easier to manufacture. As a
food company spokesman quipped, “We certainly don’t want
to kill off our customers.” (28, p. S-10) However, as the cyni-
cally inclined might be tempted to point out, consumers of
food products rarely die overnight – it normally takes years

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Supermarket Semantics 7

for fat, sodium, and sugar to do serious damage. Therefore,
the casualties are not immediately apparent and cause-effect
relationships are difficult to establish.

Over and above the health issues involved, current food
labeling and advertising practices raise serious ethical ques-
tions. The following brief overview of nutritional health
claims, followed by several specific cases of false or mislead-
ing food claims should bring the problem clearly into focus.

A small trickle of food health claims began in 1984 when
the Kellogg Company began selling All-Bran Cereal as a can-
cer preventative – with the blessing of the National Cancer
Institute. The FDA apparently considered taking action, but
backed off under pressure from the Office of Management
and Budget, which reviews proposed regulations (9, p. 22).
The floodgates opened in 1987, however, when, under pres-
sure from the food industry and the White House, the FDA
lifted the long-standing ban against using health claims on
food labels. Suddenly it was legal to put phrases like “low
sodium,” “cholesterol free,” or “high fiber” on a can of aspara-
gus or on a box of cereal. Such claims worked to the advan-
tage of the marketers, and the sale of some bran cereals rose
by as much as 70 percent within two years. (24, p. 36) By
1989, 40 percent of new products and a third of the $3.6 bil-
lion worth of food advertising made such claims, proclaiming
the disease preventing qualities of such items as oat bran,
fruit juice, and margarine. (30, p. 12) In January, 1990 the
American Heart Association unveiled its “HeartGuide” pro-
gram. For a fee (ranging from $15,000 to $640,000) food com-
panies could send their product in for evaluation. If the
Association was satisfied that the product met their stan-
dards, the company could then place the HeartGuide label
on their product. In April of 1991 the FDA finally forced
Heart Guide to stop supplying labels to its subscribers. (24, p.
40)

The practice of relating one’s product to health/nutrition
concerns has developed into a very marketable rhetorical
strategy for numerous food companies. Obviously, this is a
self-serving practice for those whose goal it is to sell food
products. In this connection, a number of ethical problems

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

8 Et cetera * Spring 1 992

will become quite apparent in the discussion of the following
cases.

On April 24, 1991, the FDA seized 2,400 cases of Procter &
Gamble Company’s Citrus Hill Fresh Choice orange juice in a
milestone case. The FDA contended that the term “fresh”

was false, misleading, and confusing to customers since the
product was made from concentrate. Company representa-
tive Wendy Jacques said:

We believe our product is properly labeled, but the contro-
versy surrounding this issue, including the FDA’s unusual
seizure action, has simply made it impossible from a busi-
ness standpoint to continue to use the term “fresh” on our
brand. (5, p. 53)

Five days after the Citrus Hill seizure, Chesebrough-Pond
yielded to FDA demands to stop using the term “fresh” in its
Ragu Fresh Italian Brand Pasta Sauce. The company rela-
beled it “Ragu Fino Italian.” Company President-CEO Art Go-
nis said that

Ragu remains convinced that consumers correctly under-
stand our current label as referring to fresh taste only…. We
are pleased to have resolved this matter cooperatively with
FDA. (8, p. 1)

Actually, the charges by the FDA had been contested by
Ragu since August, 1989. (8, p. 1)

Because of much confusion over the meaning of the term
“fresh,” the FDA has asked manufacturers, packers, and oth-
ers who label food products and who do not now use the
term fresh on their labels to refrain from using the term. The
agency first addressed the “fresh” issue fifty years ago, but
new technologies and new products have stretched the
boundaries of the term’s meaning. In the 1940’s the FDA
agreed to allow the term “fresh frozen” to be used on produce
that had been frozen while still fresh. Current guidelines
dictate that the term “fresh” should not be applied to foods
that have been subjected to any form of heat or chemical pro-
cessing. (13, p. 6)

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Supermarket Semantics 9

The “no-cholesterol” claim is another rhetorical weapon
that has been used and abused over the last few years. For
example, Peter Pan’s creamy peanut butter has the term “No
Cholesterol” in bold print on its label. The claim is true as far
as it goes. Only animal products contain cholesterol. How-
ever, the mere statement of no cholesterol does not necessari-
ly mean that the product is safe and healthy to eat, as many
consumers believe. A careful reading of the small print on
the jar cap indicates that 76 percent of the peanut butter’s
calories come from fat. Nutrition experts recommend that no
more than approximately 30 percent of our calories come
from fat. (32, p. 153)
Promise margarine also claims to have no cholesterol. This,
of course, is true of all margarines. The package has a picture
of a heart on it; a mention of heart disease; and the slogan,
“Get Heart Smart.” What the label fails to reveal is that mar-

garine contains roughly 25 percent trans-fatty acids in addi-
tion to 18 percent saturated fatty acids, and 57 percent
unsaturated fatty acids. (31, p. 196) The trans-fatty acids and
some saturated fatty acids can raise blood cholesterol.

The label on Best Foods’ new Hellmann’s Cholesterol Free

Reduced Calorie Mayonnaise tempts customers to “enjoy
greater taste that’s 100% cholesterol-free, half the calories and
low in sodium.” Similarly, the label on a competing product,
Kraft USA’s Miracle Whip Light, also lures consumers with
the cholesterol-free promise, adding, “It still has that great
tangy zip you love and is delicious on all your sandwiches
and salads.” But while the label on the Hellmann’s jar shows
that some saturated fats have been removed, the suggested
one-tablespoon serving still gets 90 percent of its 50 calories
from fat – and Miracle whip gets 98 percent of its 50 calories
from fat. (28, p. S-10)
A box of Quaker Oat Bran contains the words, in large

print, “Can Help Reduce Cholesterol.” Also added, in smaller
print, are the words “when part of a fat-modified, low-
cholesterol diet.” What this does not reveal is that the people
in the study that supports Quaker’s claims did show a drop
in blood cholesterol averaging 8 percent. However, most of
that drop came from strict adherence to a low-fat diet. (32, p.
157) In response to charges against Quaker Oats by the Tex-

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

10 Et cetera • Spring 1 992

as Attorney General, a Quaker spokesman denied the allega-
tions against them regarding their claim that oat bran could
reduce cholesterol levels and thereby reduce the risk of a
heart attack, citing both in-house and FTC studies that “dem-
onstrate that consumers are not misled by our advertising.”
(20, p. 2) The Texas Attorney General disagreed saying,

We are concerned that cholesterol ads are escalating. The
FTC has not been vigorous in protecting consumers from
these kinds of ads. It will be up to the court to decide
whether Texas or Quaker is correct in the claims that are
made. (20, p. 118)

Another case involved General Mills’ Benefit Cereal. As a

result of company-sponsored experiments, General Mills
claimed a 9 percent reduction in blood cholesterol among
people eating the cereal in conjunction with a low-fat diet.
Two-thirds of that reduction was attributed to Benefit. (9, p.
22) But when Procter & Gamble attempted to market Meta-
mucil as a cholesterol reducer, the FDA said no. Procter &
Gamble then (1989) filed a suit against General Mills, claim-
ing that Benefit was a drug. The cereal is loaded with psyl-
lium, a high-fiber grain grown mainly in India. Procter &
Gamble felt that, since Metamucil also contains a heavy con-
centration of psyllium, they should be allowed to make simi-
lar cholesterol reducing claims for their product. However,
they were prohibited from doing so. Evidence supplied by
Procter & Gamble to support its claims was insufficient said
the FDA. Yet, General Mills, using a company-sponsored
study from the same laboratory hired by Procter & Gamble,
was allowed to make cholesterol reducing claims for Benefit
with no interference from the FDA. Procter & Gamble called

the inconsistent treatment “blatantly unfair.” (9, p. 22)
In a related case Federal District Judge A. Joe Fish recently

ruled that the Kellogg Company misrepresented its Heart-
wise cereal by promoting it as a drug. He continued the ban
on its sale in Texas. The state’s Attorney General, Dan Mor-
ales, charged that in promoting Heartwise, Kellogg did not
disclose the health risks of psyllium, a laxative contained in
the cereal, and represented the product as being able to re-

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Supermarket Semantics 1 1

duce consumers’ cholesterol levels. According to the evi-
dence presented in the case, the high-fiber plant product has
been known to cause severe allergic reactions and is not cer-
tified by the FDA as safe for use in foods. Morales criticized
Kellogg, pointing out that health-conscious consumers are
vulnerable to nutritional claims:

It is very disheartening and disturbing when a well-known
company intentionally misrepresents its products to the ex-
tent that the lives of some persons become endangered. (4,
p. 12)

Kellogg spokesman Joseph M. Stewart replied:

We continue to stand behind the accuracy of our advertis-
ing. We believe the man (referring to Texas Assistant Attor-
ney General Stephen Gardner) should be acting in a
responsible way and has no business attacking our good
name. We’ve taken 85 years to establish our reputation. (4,
p. 12)

Closely related to the cholesterol claims are the fat claims.
For example, a 16 ounce package of Louis Rich Turkey Bolo-
gna has emblazoned on the top of the container, “82% Fat-
Free.” This would seem to indicate that the meat contains

only 18 percent fat and is therefore, a healthy choice. How-
ever, this conclusion is not justified. A more thorough analy-
sis reveals that 75 percent of the calories in this meat come
from fat. (17, p. 155)
The low-cholesterol low-fat percentages are not the only

health claims used by food companies. For example, Camp-
bell Soup Company was recently cited by the FTC for failing
to reveal the sodium content of their product in the overall
context of their health claims. Specifically, the FTC charged
that Campbell ads linking the low-cholesterol, low-fat con-
tent of its soups with a reduced risk of some types of heart
disease misled consumers because it did not alert them to the

soup’s high sodium content.

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

12 Et cetera • Spring 1 992

The alleged deception was not failure to disclose the sodium
content of Campbell’s soups, but failure to disclose that
these soups are high in sodium and that diets high in so-
dium may increase the risk of heart disease. (4, p. 7)

Campbell spokesman James H. Moran said, “We ultimately
settled the case in order to avoid the expense and distraction
of further litigation. We stand by our advertising.” (4, p. 7)
Campbell sells about 5 billion cans of soup per year, generat-
ing about 65 percent of the $2.2 billion retail soup market in
the United States. (4, p. 7)
Sugar content is another area of concern for many consum-
ers and an area not overlooked by the marketers of various
food products. For example, a side panel on a box of General
Mills, Cinnamon Toast Crunch cereal features a handy bar
graph that favorably compares its sugar content (9 grams per
ounce) to that of sweeter cereals. The label reads, “The
Wholesome Goodness You Want.” Quaker’s Tiny Toon Ad-
ventures pictures a character yelling, “Hey! There’s not much
sugar in this cereal!” As proof there is a list of ten other cere-
als and their sugar content. Tiny Toon is tied for least sweet.
Its 10 grams of sugar per ounce looks good next to a carefully
culled crop of rival cereals. The fact remains that both Cinna-
mon Toast Crunch and Tiny Toon are about one-third sugar
by weight. (34, p. 447)

General Mills’ Trix cereal does list (in small print) the 12
grams per ounce sugar content of their product, aimed pri-
marily at children, but this information is clearly buried be-
neath a considerable amount of subterfuge. For example, the
brightly-colored box, with the picture of a happy rabbit on
the front, includes such enticing words as “Natural Fruit Fla-
vors with real fruit juice,” “Fruity Sweetened Corn Puffs,” “No
Artificial Flavors,” and “Good source of vitamin C.” In light of
its alluring appeal to children and its very high concentration
of sugar, the cereal seems appropriately named.

Another confusion for the consumer is what might be
called the “slight-of-hand” trick. This refers to the manipula-
tion of packages/serving sizes to create the illusion that the
amount of fat, sodium, sugar, etc. have been reduced. For
example, General Foods USA’s Entenmann’s no-cholesterol,

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

Supermarket Semantics 13

low-calorie cherry coffee cake, sold under the theme, “Now
you can eat cake,” is likely to confuse some consumers who
really should not eat much of it. While it is true that each
serving contains only 90 calories, and only 20 percent of
them are fat, the suggested serving size is only 1.3 ounces.
(28, p. 10) The nutritional information on all food products is
generally based on the serving size listed on the label. This,
of course, is designed to benefit the seller by making the
product appear high in nutrition and low in harmful ingre-
dients.

For years numerous individuals and consumer groups
have complained about the incomplete information, decep-
tion, and distortion occurring in food labeling and advertis-
ing, but they have generally met with strong resistance. The
National Food Processors, the Grocery Manufacturers of
America, and other industry associations have long opposed
mandatory nutritional labeling as too expensive. (33, p. 4)
However, the new law, which is scheduled to go into effect
by 1993, makes labeling mandatory for all processed foods
and calls for voluntary labeling of seafood, fruits, and vegeta-
bles. It also requires the FDA to define descriptive terms
such as “light,” “low-fat,” “reduced calories,” and the like. It
will not cover food sold in restaurants and does not cover

meat and poultry, which are already regulated by the De-
partment of Agriculture. (24, pp. 36-40)

While we would probably grant that manufacturers, mar-
keters, designers, and advertisers do not set out to deliberate-
ly deceive the American public, somewhere between the
original intention and the final results, a metamorphosis
seems to occur in which those purporting to be concerned
about the public welfare become absorbed in a campaign of
greed – often at the public’s expense. The problem of mis-
leading food claims has gotten so bad that in January, 1990,
thirty-four state attorneys general jointly urged the FDA to
disallow any type of health claims in food labeling. (28, p.
S-10) Consumers Union also submitted recommendations to
the FDA at about the same time encouraging the agency to
disallow all health claims on foods. (17) In addition, several
states have investigated various food health claims and filed
law suits charging the companies with false advertising. (20,

This content downloaded from 132.174.250.253 on Thu, 20 Sep 2018 19:37:48 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

14 Et cetera • Spring 1 992

p. 2) “Ambiguous” and “misleading” are perhaps the nicest
things that can be said about the current state of food label-
ing and advertising.
The promise of new and improved federal regulations

should help, but it is doubtful that legislation alone will solve
the problem. Until companies and their promoters are will-
ing to come to grips with the ethical implications of their cal-
culated, sophisticated, and ubiquitous campaigns filled with
incomplete, misleading, and questionable information, little
improvement is likely to take place. Companies must be
willing to balance consideration of the consumers’ nutritional
needs against their own need to sell the product. If such an
unlikely change does not take place, it will be interesting to
see what half-truths, illusions, misleading information, or
downright lies will replace those currently being employed.
In conclusion, four observations emerge from the study of
current policies and practices regarding food labeling and
advertising:
(1) The pervasiveness of half-truths, deception, and mis-

leading messages contributes to what Galbraith referred to as
“the growth of delusory images” in all areas of our society. In
his opinion, these delusory images have spread from the area
of marketing to that of domestic and foreign policy and “col-
ors our entire national life with a hue of unreality.” (19, p. 97)
(2) A second outcome of these exaggerations is a growing
mistrust of those who manufacture and market food prod-
ucts. A recent poll by the Roper Organization revealed that
52 percent of those surveyed indicated that they read food
labels for information, but only one in six thinks that adver-
tised health claims are accurate most of the time. Nearly 30
percent think that health claims on food products are almost
never true. (24, p. 39) According to the Food Marketing Insti-
tute’s 1990 survey, only 36 percent of the people surveyed
always read ingredients or nutritional information. Interest-
ingly, this study found that people over fifty years old read
the labels more than younger people, but are less likely to
believe what they read. (24, p. 40)
(3) Testimony from company