食品行業(yè)不可告人的十大秘密

“上得廳堂，下得廚房，制成酸奶，壓成膠囊。2012，皮鞋很忙?！碑?dāng)下調(diào)侃食品安全已成為一種時(shí)尚，調(diào)侃的背后更透出消費(fèi)者對(duì)食品行業(yè)為賺取利潤而“無毒不使”的痛恨與憂慮。事實(shí)上，食品制造商們不僅僅在生產(chǎn)原料使用上做手腳，他們還會(huì)通過標(biāo)簽與“揚(yáng)長(zhǎng)避短”的廣告語、通過資助各機(jī)構(gòu)的科學(xué)研究、通過游說政府等一系列不易令人察覺的伎倆來騙取消費(fèi)者的青睞。下面就讓我們一起來了解食品行業(yè)那些不可告人的秘密。

Bigger， juicier， saltier， sweeter， crunchier1). Most of all， more. The food industry and its nonstop marketing has been tabbed by many experts as a major player in the obesity epidemic. “The result of constant exposure to today’s ‘eat more’ food environment，” write Marion Nestle and Malden Nesheim in their book Why Calories Count， “has been to drive people to desire high-calorie foods and to become ‘conditioned overeaters.’”

Even as the food industry takes steps seemingly in the right direction—by launching campaigns to bring healthy products to schools， for example—wellness initiatives are often just marketing ploys2)， contends David Ludwig， a pediatrician and coauthor of a commentary published in 2008 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that raised questions about whether big food companies can be trusted to help combat obesity. Ultimately， he has argued， makers of popular junk foods have an obligation to stockholders to maximize profits， which means encouraging consumers to eat more—not less—of a company’s products. Ludwig and Nestle， a professor of nutrition at New York University， both of whom have long histories of tracking the food industry， spoke with U.S. News and highlighted 10 things that junk food makers don’t want you to know about their products and how they promote them. Here’s a peek behind the curtain:

Junk food makers spend billions advertising unhealthy foods to kids. According to the Federal Trade Commission， food makers spend some $1.6 billion annually to reach children through the traditional media as well as the Internet， in-store advertising， and sweepstakes3). An article published in 2006 in the Journal of Public Health Policy puts the number as high as $10 billion annually. The bulk of4) these ads are for unhealthy products high in calories， sugar， fat， and sodium5). Promotions often use cartoon characters or free giveaways6) to entice7) kids into the junk food fold. On TV alone， the average child sees about 5，500 food commercials a year (or about 15 per day) that advertise high-sugar breakfast cereals， fast food， soft drinks， candy， and snacks， according to the Yale Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity. Compare that to the fewer than 100 TV ads per year kids see for healthy foods like fruits， veggies8)， and bottled water.

The studies that food producers support tend to minimize health concerns associated with their products. In fact， according to a review led by Ludwig of hundreds of studies that looked at the health effects of milk， juice， and soda， the likelihood of conclusions favorable to the industry was several times higher among industry-sponsored research than studies that received no industry funding. “If a study is funded by the industry， it may be closer to advertising than science，” he says.

More processing means more profits， but typically makes food less healthy. Minimally processed foods such as fresh fruits and vegetables obviously aren’t where food companies look for profits. The big bucks9) stem from turning government-subsidized commodity crops—mainly corn， wheat， and soybeans—into fast foods， snack foods， and beverages. High-profit products derived from these commodity crops are generally high in calories and low in nutritional value. Ultraprocessed10) foods， for example， lack fiber， micronutrients11)， and healthful plant substances called phytochemicals12) that protect against heart disease and diabetes. Consider: A 10-ounce， 90-calorie portion of strawberries has 5 grams of fiber， abundant vitamins and minerals， and dozens of phytochemicals， while a 1-ounce portion of Fruit Gushers also has 90 calories， but virtually none of the fruit benefits.

Less-processed foods are generally more filling than their highly processed counterparts. Fresh apples have an abundance of fiber and nutrients that are lost when they are processed into applesauce. And the added sugar or other sweeteners increase the number of calories without necessarily making the applesauce any more filling. Apple juice， which is even more processed， has had almost all of the fiber and nutrients stripped out13). This same stripping out of nutrients， says Ludwig， happens with highly refined white bread compared with stone-ground14) whole-wheat bread.

Many supposedly healthy replacement foods are hardly healthier than the foods they replace. In 2006， for example， major beverage makers agreed to remove sugary sodas from school vending machines15). But the industry mounted an intense lobbying effort that persuaded lawmakers to allow sports drinks and vitamin waters16) that—despite their slightly healthier reputations—still can be packed with sugar and calories.

A health claim on the label doesn’t necessarily make a food healthy. Health claims such as “zero trans fats17)” or “contains whole wheat” may create the 1 impression that a product is healthy when it’s not. While the claims may be true， a product is not going to benefit your health if it’s also loaded with， say， salt and sugar or saturated fat18) and lacks fiber or other nutrients. “These claims are calorie distracters，” adds Nestle. “They make people forget about the calories.” For example， tropical-fruit flavored Gerber Graduates Fruit Juice Treats show pictures of fresh oranges and pineapple to imply that they’re made from real fruit， according to a 2010 report from the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In reality， the main ingredients are corn syrup19)， sugar， and white grape juice concentrate20). And Keebler’s Townhouse Bistro Multigrain Crackers boast that they’re made with “toasted whole wheat，” although sugar content far outweighs the whole wheat. “‘Made with whole grains’ should send up a red flag21)，” says registered dietitian Marisa Moore， a spokesperson with the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. “If you’re eating packaged food， like cereal， bread， or pasta， check the ingredient list to verify that the first ingredient is in fact a whole grain.” (Think of the first ingredient listed on a package as the main ingredient; those listed farther down are included in smaller amounts.)

Food industry pressure has made nutritional guidelines confusing for consumers. As Nestle explained in her 2003 book Food Politics， the food industry has a history of preferring scientific jargon to straight talk. As far back as 1977， public health officials attempted to include the advice “reduce consumption of meat” in an important report called Dietary Goals for the United States. The report’s authors capitulated22) to intense pushback from the cattle industry and used this less-direct and more ambiguous advice: “Choose meats， poultry23)， and fish， which will reduce saturated fat intake.” Overall the government has a hard time suggesting that people eat less of anything.

The food industry funds front groups24) that fight antiobesity public health initiatives. Unless you follow politics closely， you wouldn’t necessarily realize that a group with a name like the Center for Consumer Freedom25) (CCF) has anything to do with the food industry. In fact， Ludwig and Nestle point out， this group has lobbied aggressively against obesity-related public health campaigns—such as the one directed at removing junk food from schools—and is funded， according to the Center for Media and Democracy， primarily through donations from big food companies such as Coca-Cola， Cargill， Tyson Foods， and Wendy’s.

The food industry works aggressively to discredit26) its critics. According to the 2008 JAMA article， the Center for Consumer Freedom boasts that “[our strategy] is to shoot the messenger. We’ve got to attack [activists’] credibility as spokespersons.” On its website， the group calls Nestle “one of the country’s most hysterical anti-food fanatics27).”

“Pink slime28)” is on its way out—but it’s not gone. Ground meat29) is commonly bulked up with what critics call “pink slime，” butchering30) scraps31) that have been cleansed with ammonia32). While the industry insists that its “l(fā)ean， finely textured beef trimmings33)” are harmless， some experts are questioning the safety of the ubiquitous filler. Following a public outcry， the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in March 2012 that school districts can choose between receiving beef with the trimmings or without， but at a higher fat content. A growing number of grocery stores have announced that they’re ditching so-called “pink slime.” Still， it remains USDA-approved， and the food industry is free to use it.

食品行業(yè)總是在追求更大、更咸、更甜、更多汁、更香脆。最重要的一點(diǎn)是——更多。很多專家將食品行業(yè)及其無休止的市場(chǎng)營銷視為肥胖流行病的一大推手。瑪麗恩·內(nèi)斯特爾與莫爾登·奈什姆在兩人合著的《不可忽視的卡路里》一書中寫道：“長(zhǎng)期生活在當(dāng)今‘多吃’的飲食環(huán)境中，人們?cè)桨l(fā)追求高卡路里食品，逐漸變成了‘習(xí)慣性暴食者’?！?/p>

即便食品行業(yè)采取了看似方向正確的措施——比如開展健康食品入駐校園的活動(dòng)——但這些倡導(dǎo)健康飲食的計(jì)劃通常也只不過是營銷策略，兒科醫(yī)生大衛(wèi)·路德維格如此斷言道。路德維格與人合寫了一篇評(píng)論，發(fā)表在2008年的《美國醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)雜志》(JAMA)上，該文對(duì)依靠大型食品公司來抗擊肥胖提出了質(zhì)疑。他指出，那些流行的垃圾食品的制造商說到底是要對(duì)股東負(fù)責(zé)的，他們有義務(wù)使利潤達(dá)到最大化，這就意味著他們會(huì)鼓勵(lì)消費(fèi)者多吃——而不是少吃——自己公司的食品。路德維格與紐約大學(xué)營養(yǎng)學(xué)教授瑪麗恩·內(nèi)斯特爾長(zhǎng)期追蹤食品業(yè)的動(dòng)向，他們接受了《美國新聞》的采訪，重點(diǎn)揭露了垃圾食品制造商關(guān)于產(chǎn)品本身及其促銷手段不可告人的十大秘密。下面我們就來管中窺豹一番。

垃圾食品制造商花費(fèi)數(shù)十億美元做廣告，向兒童推銷不健康食品。據(jù)美國聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)統(tǒng)計(jì)，食品制造商會(huì)通過傳統(tǒng)媒體、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)、店內(nèi)廣告及抽獎(jiǎng)的方式向兒童宣傳產(chǎn)品，這方面的花費(fèi)每年高達(dá)16億美元左右。而2006年發(fā)表于《公共健康政策雜志》的一篇文章則把這一數(shù)字抬高至每年上百億美元。這些廣告大部分推銷的都是高卡、高糖、高脂、高鈉的不健康食品。通常使用卡通形象或免費(fèi)贈(zèng)品等促銷手段誘使兒童沉迷于垃圾食品之中。據(jù)耶魯大學(xué)的拉德食品政策與肥胖研究中心統(tǒng)計(jì)，光是在電視上，每名兒童平均一年就會(huì)看到大約5500個(gè)(相當(dāng)于每天大約15個(gè))有關(guān)谷物早餐、快餐、軟飲料、糖果和小吃的食品廣告，這些都是含糖量高的食品。相比之下，對(duì)于推銷水果、蔬菜和瓶裝水等健康飲食的電視廣告，兒童每年能看到的連一百個(gè)都不到。

在由食品企業(yè)贊助進(jìn)行的研究中，與企業(yè)產(chǎn)品相關(guān)的健康方面的擔(dān)憂總是被淡化到最低程度。事實(shí)上，路德維格對(duì)數(shù)百份針對(duì)牛奶、果汁和汽水的健康效應(yīng)進(jìn)行的研究做了一番考察，發(fā)現(xiàn)相比未受食品行業(yè)贊助的研究，那些受贊助的研究更可能得出有利于食品行業(yè)的結(jié)論，而且這種可能性要高出數(shù)倍。他指出：“如果一項(xiàng)研究得到了食品行業(yè)的贊助，那它可能更接近于廣告，而非科學(xué)研究?！?/p>

加工過程越復(fù)雜，利潤就越大，但通常也讓食品更不健康。像新鮮水果和蔬菜這樣不用怎么加工的食品顯然不是食品公司追求利潤的對(duì)象，把由政府補(bǔ)貼的經(jīng)濟(jì)作物——主要是玉米、小麥和大豆——轉(zhuǎn)化為快餐、小吃和飲料才是他們大發(fā)橫財(cái)之道。由這些經(jīng)濟(jì)作物加工而成的高利潤食品通常都是熱量很高，但營養(yǎng)價(jià)值很低。比如說，加工工序繁雜的食品缺乏纖維素、微量營養(yǎng)素以及被稱為植物化學(xué)因子的健康植物元素，這種植物元素具有預(yù)防心臟病和糖尿病的作用。想想看：一份10盎司、90卡路里的草莓含有五克纖維、豐富的維他命和礦物質(zhì)以及幾十種植物化學(xué)因子；而一份一盎司的Fruit Gushers水果軟糖同樣含有90卡路里，卻幾乎不含有水果的任何營養(yǎng)成分。

加工工序少的食品通常比加工工序多的食品更能讓人產(chǎn)生飽腹感。在將蘋果加工成蘋果醬的過程中，新鮮蘋果富含的纖維和營養(yǎng)成分都會(huì)丟失。加工過程中添加的糖分或其他甜味劑雖然增加了食品的熱量，卻未必使蘋果醬更有飽腹感。加工工序更復(fù)雜的蘋果汁則喪失了幾乎所有的纖維和營養(yǎng)成分。路德維格說，與石磨的全麥面包相比，高度精制的面粉制成的白面包同樣也喪失了麥子含有的所有營養(yǎng)成分。

許多標(biāo)榜健康的替代食品不見得比它們所替代掉的食品更健康。比如，在2006年，幾家主要的飲料公司同意把含糖的蘇打飲料從學(xué)校的自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)中撤除，但他們又全力游說，說服立法機(jī)構(gòu)允許在學(xué)校銷售運(yùn)動(dòng)飲料和維他命水。盡管這兩種飲料健康聲譽(yù)略勝一籌，但依然含有高糖分和高熱量。

食品標(biāo)簽上宣稱健康并不一定意味著食品真的健康。諸如“零反式脂肪”或“含有全麥成分”這樣宣稱健康的標(biāo)簽可能會(huì)制造假象，讓人們誤以為該食品很健康，實(shí)則不然。這些標(biāo)簽所宣稱的或許是事實(shí)，但如果該食品同時(shí)也包含大量的鹽、糖及飽和脂肪，而缺乏纖維或其他營養(yǎng)物質(zhì)，那它同樣對(duì)你的健康無所裨益。“這些標(biāo)簽讓人們不再關(guān)注卡路里，讓人們忘了卡路里的事?！?內(nèi)斯特爾補(bǔ)充道。比如，公共利益科學(xué)中心在2010年的報(bào)告中指出，熱帶水果口味的嘉寶牌學(xué)生果汁在包裝圖片上畫著新鮮的橙子和菠蘿，暗示該產(chǎn)品由真正的水果制成，但事實(shí)上其主要成分卻是玉米糖漿、糖和白葡萄濃縮汁。奇寶公司的Townhouse Bistro多谷類餅干鼓吹他們的產(chǎn)品由“烘烤的全麥”制成，雖然餅干里糖分的含量遠(yuǎn)高于全麥的含量。“‘全谷物制成’是個(gè)危險(xiǎn)的信號(hào)，” 美國營養(yǎng)學(xué)會(huì)女發(fā)言人、注冊(cè)營養(yǎng)師瑪麗莎·莫爾說道，“如果你打算食用麥片、面包、意大利面這樣的包裝食品，那就查看一下成分表，確認(rèn)表上列在第一位的成分為全谷物?！?這里我們就把成分表中列在第一位的看做是食品的主要成分，隨后所列的成分含量要少些。)

由于食品行業(yè)施壓，營養(yǎng)指南變得讓消費(fèi)者困惑不已。內(nèi)斯特爾在她2003年出版的著作《食品政治》中解釋道，食品行業(yè)素來喜歡賣弄科學(xué)術(shù)語，不喜歡直來直去說話。早在1977年，負(fù)責(zé)公共健康的官員就試圖將“減少肉類攝取”這條建議寫入一份名為《美國膳食目標(biāo)》的重要報(bào)告中。但報(bào)告起草人最終頂不住來自養(yǎng)牛業(yè)的強(qiáng)烈抵制，改用了間接委婉、模棱兩可的措辭進(jìn)行建議：“選擇肉類、家禽和魚類，這些將減少飽和脂肪的攝入?！笨偟膩碚f，政府無論建議人們減少食用任何一種食品，都會(huì)遇到困難。

食品行業(yè)資助一些代理組織，使其阻撓有關(guān)抗擊肥胖的公共健康行動(dòng)。除非你密切關(guān)注政治，否則你可能意識(shí)不到像掛著“消費(fèi)者自由中心”(CCF)之名的組織會(huì)與食品行業(yè)有什么瓜葛。路德維格與內(nèi)斯特爾指出，事實(shí)上這個(gè)組織極力展開游說，阻撓與肥胖相關(guān)的公共健康運(yùn)動(dòng)，比如旨在將垃圾食品撤出學(xué)校的運(yùn)動(dòng)。據(jù)媒體與民主中心披露，該組織的活動(dòng)資金主要來源于可口可樂、嘉吉、泰森、溫迪等大型食品公司的捐贈(zèng)。

誰批評(píng)食品行業(yè)，食品行業(yè)就大肆詆毀其聲譽(yù)。據(jù)《美國醫(yī)學(xué)會(huì)雜志》2008年的一篇文章揭露，消費(fèi)者自由中心吹噓說：“我們的手段就是槍打出頭鳥，誰站出來發(fā)言，就讓誰聲譽(yù)掃地?！痹摻M織在其網(wǎng)站上污蔑內(nèi)斯特爾是“全國最癲狂的反食品分子”。

“粉紅肉渣”漸漸淡出市場(chǎng)，但并未銷聲匿跡，碎肉中通常摻雜有批評(píng)者所稱的“粉紅肉渣”，也就是氨水清洗過的屠宰廢料。盡管食品行業(yè)堅(jiān)稱這些“脂肪少且肉質(zhì)細(xì)嫩的牛肉碎渣”對(duì)健康無害，但一些專家依然對(duì)這種普遍使用的填充料是否安全提出質(zhì)疑。由于公眾的強(qiáng)烈抗議，美國農(nóng)業(yè)部于2012年3月宣布，校區(qū)在購買牛肉時(shí)就是否購買肉渣可以自由選擇，但是不含肉渣的牛肉脂肪含量較高。越來越多的食品商店已宣稱不再出售“粉紅肉渣”，但美國農(nóng)業(yè)部并沒有禁止使用該產(chǎn)品，所以“粉紅肉渣”在食品行業(yè)還可以隨意使用。

1.crunchy [?kr?nt?i] adj. 松脆的

2.ploy [pl??] n. 策略，手段

3.sweepstake [?swi?pste?k] n. 抽彩給獎(jiǎng)法的獎(jiǎng)金

4.the bulk of：大多數(shù)，大半部分

5.sodium [?s??di?m] n. 鈉

6.giveaway [?ɡ?v?we?] n. 免費(fèi)樣品

7.entice [?n?ta?s] vt. 誘惑，誘使

8.veggie [?ved?i] n. 蔬菜

9.buck [b?k] n. 美元

10.ultraprocessed [??ltr??pr??sest] adj. 加工工序極其多的

11.micronutrient [?ma?kr???nju?tri?nt] n. 微量營養(yǎng)元素

12.phytochemical [?f??t???kem?kl] n. 植物化學(xué)因子

13.strip out：剝離，剔除

14.stone-ground：用細(xì)磨磨的

15.vending machine：自動(dòng)售貨機(jī)

16.vitamin water：維他命水，一種含有維生素成分的運(yùn)動(dòng)飲料。2009年可口可樂推出的維他命水曾受到起訴，起訴理由是其宣傳有誤導(dǎo)性，其標(biāo)榜為健康飲料，實(shí)際上是和可樂一樣的含糖量很高的飲料。

17.trans fat：反式脂肪酸

18.saturated fat：飽和脂肪酸

19.corn syrup：玉米果漿。syrup [?s?r?p] n. 糖漿，果汁

20.concentrate [?k?nsntre?t] n. 濃縮品

21.red flag：危險(xiǎn)信號(hào)；[喻]惹人生氣的事物

22.capitulate [k??p?t?ule?t] vi. 屈服，讓步

23.poultry [?p??ltri] n. 家禽

24.front group：代理組織。這類組織表面上旨在推動(dòng)某項(xiàng)議程，實(shí)則受某些利益團(tuán)體的贊助，為這些利益團(tuán)體服務(wù)。

25.Center for Consumer Freedom：消費(fèi)者自由中心，是一家宣稱以保護(hù)人們享有各類食品、飲料和香煙的自由選擇權(quán)的非營利性組織，實(shí)則受到餐飲、香煙與酒類行業(yè)的資助。

26.discredit [d?s?kred?t] vt. 敗壞……的名聲，使被懷疑

27.fanatic [f??n?t?k] n. 狂熱者，盲信者

28.pink slime：粉紅肉渣，指經(jīng)過氨消毒的瘦牛肉及其副產(chǎn)品，這些經(jīng)氨加工的肉渣被指不適合人類食用。

29.ground meat：碎肉

30.butcher [?b?t??(r)] vt. 屠宰

31.scrap [skr?p] n. 廢料

32.ammonia [??m??ni?] n. 氨水

33.trimming [?tr?m??] n. 碎屑，廢料