Showing posts with label False advertising. Show all posts
Showing posts with label False advertising. Show all posts

Friday, 29 June 2012

How safe is a can of Coke?


How safe is a can of Coke?
The world is addicted to Coca-Cola. Each day, 1.6 billion cans and bottles of the sickly brown liquid are gulped down, making it the globe’s most recognized brand.
But ever since it was first concocted as a brain tonic in 1886 (designed to treat ‘sick headaches, neuralgia, hysteria and melancholy’), the makers of Coca-Cola have been secretive about what goes into their drink.
American pharmacist and Coke founder As a Chandler was so concerned that the recipe could fall into the wrong hands he reportedly never wrote it down. 
That secrecy lives on today. Coca-Cola insists only two people alive know the formula, that they never travel on the same plane in case it crashes and that the list of ingredients is locked in a bank vault.
But while the recipe for Coke is surrounded by the kind of mystique that marketing men dream of, the company found its formula under less welcome scrutiny this week. 
For it has emerged that Coca-Cola in the U.S. has reduced levels of one of its ingredients following fears that it could cause cancer.
The chemical — 4-methylimidazole (4-MI) — helps to give the drink its color, but is listed by Californian health officials as a potential carcinogen. 
While European regulators do not believe it poses any health risks, the company has also pledged to reduce its levels in Coke sold in Britain and the rest of the world, although it hasn’t given a timescale.
Pepsi, meanwhile, has reduced the chemical in its American formula, but refused to change it anywhere else — meaning if the Californian health officials are right, the Pepsi sold in Britain and most of the rest of the world is potentially more carcinogenic than the stuff swigged in America.
Coca-Cola and Pepsi this week insisted that all of their beverages are completely safe, with Coca-Cola claiming it made the change in the U.S. only in response to a ‘scientifically unfounded’ food law in California.

In a statement yesterday, Coca-Cola Great Britain said: ‘Coca-Cola has an uncompromising commitment to product safety and quality. All of the ingredients in our products are safe.’
But the changes to the recipes have raised the inevitable question: just how safe are the ingredients that go into every can of cola? And what does that brown stuff really do to our insides?

And just because you drink sugar-free, diet cola, don’t think you’re off the hook. For there is a  growing body of research which suggests that low-calorie and sugar-free drinks are bad for us, too.
Studies have shown that people who have at least one low-calorie fizzy drink a day are at greater risk of obesity and type 2 diabetes.
And some experts also believe that sugar-free drinks confuse the brain, leaving it unable to distinguish between sweeteners, such as aspartame and saccharine, and regular sugar.
In that case, a person may  be tricked into overeating,  as the brain can no longer calculate the body’s  calorific intake.
So while diet colas may make you feel virtuous, they could be doing you more harm than good.

COLOURING LINKED TO CANCER

 Cola’s color comes in part from 4-methylimidazole (4-MI), a chemical that forms in the production of caramel food coloring.
Coca-Cola, Pepsi and other manufacturers insist it is safe at the low doses found in drinks.
But in California they disagree. After studies showed that long-term exposure to the chemical causes lung cancer in rats, health officials ruled that products with more than 29mcg must carry a health warning.
And when research by the Centre for Science in the Public Interest, a campaign group, found cans contained nearly 140mcg, all cola companies across the U.S. were forced to cut levels.
Food campaigners say daily consumption of  4-MI at 30mcg would cause cancer (pictured) in one in 100,000 people over their lifetimes.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration says that someone would need to drink more than 1,000 cans of cola every day to reach the levels that caused cancer in lab rats.
And the British Food Standards Agency agrees. It says the chemical is ‘not a food safety concern’.
 CAFFEINE
 A can of cola contains 40mg of caffeine — half the caffeine in a mug of tea and a third of the amount in a mug of filter coffee (pictured).
Caffeine is a stimulant that works on the central nervous system. It can trigger a dramatic, short-lived increase in blood pressure and increases the heart rate.
But there is little evidence that it causes long-term high blood pressure, or that it is bad for healthy hearts. Many regular coffee or cola drinkers simply develop a tolerance to the stimulant.
In the UK, pregnant women are advised to have less than 200mg a day. Those with high blood pressure are also warned  to steer away from coffee, tea and cola drinks.
Caffeine can also stop the body from absorbing iron from food — so people with a big cola habit may be at greater risk of iron deficiency.

SUGAR

Doctors are in no doubt — the biggest danger from cola doesn’t come from the hidden additives, flavourings  or colourings, but  from sugar.
Too much sugar leads to obesity, the major cause of cancer in the western world.
It also increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, causes heart disease and increases the risk of stroke.
The over-consumption of sugar (pictured) has been linked to depression, poor memory formation and learning disorders in animal experiments. And it rots teeth.
Each regular can of  cola contains eight teaspoons of sugar. When you drink that much sugar so quickly, the body experiences an intense sugar rush. 
The cane and beet  sugar used in Coca-Cola is used up quickly by the body,  which soon experiences a  rapid drop  in energy, leading to cravings for more sugar.

PHOSPHORIC ACID

Phosphoric acid is a clear, odourless chemical that gives cola its tangy flavour and helps cut through the sickly sweetness of all that sugar.
It is also an effective rust remover — the reason that a glass of Coke can restore the lustre to coins and old metal.
But it can also disrupt our bodies.


Research  at the U.S. National Institutes of Health in Maryland found that drinking two or more colas a day doubled the risk of kidney stones (pictured) and the phosphoric acid in it was blamed.
Another U.S. study found that women who regularly drink cola — three or
or more times a day had a four  per cent lower bone mineral density in their hips than women who didn’t drink cola.
Again, phosphoric acid is thought to be the cause. No one is entirely sure why it leads to weaker bones, although some researchers argue it prevents calcium from food being used to renew bones.

 GENDER-BENDING CHEMICAL
The ‘gender bending’ chemical BPA, or bisphenol A, has  been linked to heart disease, cancer and birth defects.
It is found in baby bottles, plastic forks, CD cases and in the lining of aluminium fizzy drinks cans, including those of Coca-Cola.
Because it mimics the female sex hormone oestrogen, and thus disrupts the natural balance of the body, some believe it could be dangerous — particularly to foetuses (pictured). 
Some animal studies have indicated it is safe. Others have linked BPA to breast cancer, liver damage, obesity, diabetes and fertility problems.
Despite the uncertainty, it has been banned in baby bottles across the European Union and in Canada in case it leaches from plastic into formula milk or juice drinks.
The Food Standards Agency in the UK says it is safe in food packaging and poses no risk in fizzy drinks.

CITRIC ACID

 Citric acid gives lemons (pictured), oranges and grapefruit their kick and cola its bite, helping to make the drink nearly as corrosive as battery acid when it comes to teeth.
Prolonged exposure to cola and other fizzy drinks strips tooth enamel causing pain, ugly smiles and — in extreme cases — turning teeth to stumps.
A study in the journal General Dentistry found that cola is ten times as corrosive as fruit juices in the first three minutes of drinking.
The researchers took slices of freshly extracted teeth and immersed them in 20 soft drinks. Teeth dunked for 48 hours in cola and lemonade lost more than five per cent of their weight.
A study in the British Dental Journal found that just one can of fizzy drink a day increased the risk of tooth erosion. While four cans increased the erosion risk by  252 per cent.

Monday, 9 January 2012

False advertising


False advertising
So, I went to some fast food places (I won’t say “restaurants”, just “places”), and picked up burgers, so I could compare them with the ads. (I’m always on the hunt for little projects like this) I brought the food home, tossed it into my photography studio, and did ad-style shoots, with pictures of the official ads on my computer next to me, so I could match the lighting and angles.
People around the world know fast food as one of the most reliable distributors of disappointment ever produced by the business world. We know that if we ever feel the need to complain about something, we can just grab a page out of a coupon booklet, adorned in pictures of juicy burgers, go to a fast food place, then have a party. Why, the places themselves usually plaster their walls with pictures of juicy burgers – often hanging right over your table – so that you need only open your eyes to find something to compare your food with, while you eat it.
Needless to say, the results of my little project were unsurprising… which shouldn’t be a surprise.
The Rules:
1 – I only care about size. I certainly don’t need my lettuce arranged like the crown on Caesar’s head.
2 – I have to show the most attractive sides of the food, with lighting identical to the ads.

 As much as I like to bash fast food, bear in mind that I’m not going to take the common route of saying that just because I’m against something; it can’t have ANY possible good sides, such as fast food actually tasting good. (I say this because it’s important to understand the difference between extremism and rationality, and many people reading this – those who know that this site is about moving against the failures of man, but I guess don’t yet know my style – might expect me to be extreme in my judgment of fast food… probably assuming I’d go to the point of crossing my arms, and saying, “What? Fast food tasting good? Puh! Why it’s… it’s disgusting!”)
It’s not disgusting. The human mind is a physical, matter-based part of your body, and, as such, it has fixed tastes that can’t easily be changed. My brain, for instance, has been programmed from the day I was born to accept western-world tastes, and that means, yes, I quite like the taste of fast food. (now, I could easily just leave out all positive mentions of taste, simply to keep from contributing anything helpful to fast food here, but I think making this point is more worth the effect.)
Taking this a little further, note that there are many things that the brain can’t pick-and-choose its acceptance of, no matter who you are. Anyone part of a religion, for example, WILL laugh at a funny enough joke that insults their figure-of-worship, even if they actually hate the joke so much that their skin starts to burn, and they feel the need to literally go out and kill somebody. You can laugh and hate at the same time. (the decision-making sectors of your brain are completely separate from the parts that perceive humor, and various other things… In this way, there are SEVERAL parts of your brain that act completely on their own, causing you to feel things that may be against what you believe. Fear is a good example of how this works: you never believe there’s a monster in the dark, but you still fear (and feel) its actual presence…)
So, most fast food may be worthless garbage – and buying it may give life to a parasitic institution that sucks away man’s longevity of life, health, and motivation to resist the failures of society – but if someone asks me, “But do you like fast food? I mean, does it taste good?” the answer is yeah.
I like how fast food tastes… I resent what it means… and I tell people that if the future of mankind means anything to them, don’t touch this stuff with a 20ft pole.
I think this is something people need to think about… what it means to be rational and balanced, not extreme. To be an extremists often means to be one-sided to the point of self-delusion, and, when the time comes to pitch your points – as extremists always feel the need – the unbending one-sidedness can make you look biased and desperate, reducing how much the other side feels they should consider what you’re saying.
I really do hate Whoppers, though:


KFC has had this a long time coming. The Burger I got the other night was a sight to behold; probably the ugliest Whopper I’ve ever seen in my life (though exactly the size I remembered them being). I’m certain it was just a collection of all the disappointment KFC has ever served, manifest into a curse, which was now coming back to haunt them.
I had a childhood of eating these, but, back then, (they have the nerve to charge you extra for cheese).
Okay, let’s give KFC one more chance here…



 They need to fire the guy who does his yoga on top of the Burgers.
…while I was at it, I caught sight of a gargantuan Burger photo on the menu, and couldn’t resist:

Before we continue, there’s something everyone should understand: burger size/presentation can certainly vary from location to location (just usually not that much). Example: once, when I was young, I went to a KFC right next to the beach, and the Burger I got was huge (comparatively), and had toasted buns!I never forgot that… though I later speculated it was probably because Karachi is known for its great beach-side burger shops (REAL places), so, being next to the beach, this place had to compete.
MY nearest two locations, however, have issues. This is what I got when I asked them specifically for burgers as big as in the ads:

(the one in the middle has cheese. I forgot cheese on the one one the right.)
A fast food place can’t turn down a request for a burger the size of the ones in the ads (they can’t say, “I’m sorry, we aren’t able to make burgers that big.”)… so, I wanted to see if my nearest two locations would even honor the request. For both orders, I pointed specifically at the giant Whoppers on the menus right behind the cashiers (very politely), and the cashiers both turned and took strangely long, careful looks (شاید اس سے پہلے کبھی کسی نے انہیں اس طرح کا آرڈر نہیں دیا تھا).
Well… I like the pile of onions I got with the second one.
(Note: I’m sure you can find SOME location where they’ll at least TRY – it’s surely just a matter of getting the right people – but, considering that my first two tries were misfires, I wonder exactly what the ratio is between employees who will try, and ones who won’t…)
Back to price… things always get worse at McDonald:

The size was actually pretty close to the ad. (though I’m still trying to determine the planetary origins of the lettuce I ended up with…)



(that’s actually a pickle in the upper right)
For those who don’t know, Big Macs come in a little box. Looking down into the box, and lifting the top bun, you ask yourself, “What is this empty, dry thing?” Apple fans know of Apple’s famous “unboxing experience” – when you open the gloriously friendly, won’t-destroy-your-hands packaging of an iPhone/iPad/iMac/etc – but, well, Big Macs are still working on theirs. (they should come with little pink, polka-dotted bow-ties on top, or little top-hats… and, given the price, they should be made out of real fur)
Big Macs taste really good, though, at least to me… even coming out of the fridge, the next day. In comparison, a leftover Whopper, coming out of the fridge like a mushy old sock from a trash bin, is a different story.
After a little thinking, I realized something. I thought, “You know, these Big Macs I got seem to fit in the boxes pretty snugly… as if the boxes were designed ONLY to house the actual Big Macs you get at the place. I wonder if the advertised ones would even fit…” So, I did a test:



Oops.
My measurements are unscientific, but extremely carefully done, so I certainly hold my candle up to them.


Ah, one of the burgers performed! The burger I got might even look a little weightier than the ad.
I forgot to get the regular one, without cheese, but here you go. $4, by the way (or, without cheese, $3.79).
Looking at the burger I got gives me this weird feeling, though, like the ad should have looked like this:
 This is another “served in a box” burger, but the one I got probably passes the box text.
Onward…
  
Well, I really liked the lettuce I got with this one. You’ll certainly never see a Whopper or Big Mac with that kind of lettuce. BUT WHERE’S THE MEAT?! It seems to be on a diet, whereas the ad burger meat was only missing a cowbell…
Flavor-wise, for me, it’s a pretty average burger. When trying to figure out what keeps these on the menu (for that price, at least), I think either some people out there really like them, or they sell as one-time-buys, intended for people who drop in late one night, and are deceived by the juicy picture… (and have a LOT of money).
 This one also comes in a box (a wider, bigger box than the Big Mac), so, I had to test again:
  
Hopefully, this is the beginning of the end, for McDonald’s… (even though all I really want is for them to make their burgers healthier, and stop their ridiculous advertising). What I think we learn from this is that these two burgers not only don’t look like the ads, but physically CAN’T, which is a minor problem.
I’m wondering if the other Third Pounder burgers don’t fit in the boxes, and, for that matter, if there are other ways to show that ad burgers can’t realistically be served at the fast food places, given their procedures. Examples I have in mind:
1.    Are some wrappers too small to be folded the way that employees are taught to fold, if carrying an ad-sized burger?
2.    Should you be able to call the “Third Pounders” that name if it’s only a third pound of meat while frozen, not when it’s served to you? (when buying meat, it makes sense to see the pre-cooked weight, because you mentally classify that differently… but, when you’re being served something off a menu, if they say you’re getting a “third pound” of meat, who actually realizes that you’re supposed to be getting less than that? When they say you’re getting a third pound of cheese, that’s what you’re getting… it’s not the cheese’s weight in milk)
3.    I’m fairly certain that many ad shots have all of the ingredients crammed up in the front. Is it legal to do this, if the human mind perceives that the thickness seen in front must be wrapping around the entire burger, equally? (and maybe it is, just with props holding up the buns in the back. Complete trickery.)
4.    Anything else? Please chime in here.
Don’t ask me how this advertising is legal. It seems that the law – at least in the US – is sometimes designed only to appease the God of Technicality, while insulting man’s ability to perceive and judge.
The law for this stuff should take into account things like the “innards-to-bun ratio”… (in other words, if the ads show 70% innards, 30% buns, the real thing can’t be 10% innards, 90% buns). Better yet, advertising should have to be able to stand up against an ordinary group of people, who can vote on whether or not something seems truthful to THEM. (It seems that today’s advertising may SOMEHOW please the God of Technicality – don’t ask me HOW – even though we people simply don’t subscribe to his technical glory).
Understand that there are several different types of correctness… and we’ll see if any are being met here. We have:
- Technical correctness
This is what is ACTUALLY correct, whether a person can perceive it or not. 99.99% of fast food locations will not serve you a burger that is technically as big as the ads, so there is virtually no technical correctness.
- Perceptual correctness
This is what we ordinary people PERCEIVE to be correct. It’s most often the only form of correctness that has any meaning to us – unless we went to business school – whether something is technically correct or not. Fast food advertising is NEVER perceptually correct, in any way. 100% of the time, someone will look at a fast food ad and think it’s just a flat-out lie.
- Plausible correctness (or occasional correctness)
Plausible correctness would say that if even one fast food location COULD, in theory, serve you a burger the size of the ads, then, plausibly, the portrayal in the ads is correct, because there isn’t a natural force stopping a burger that you buy from turning out that big. (it can be argued that plausible correctness isn’t a presentable form of correctness at all, but rather just overemphasizing the possibility that, given infinite time, correctness can eventually occur.)
And there we have it.
I happily pitch the idea that lawmakers are committing a crime against us people by allowing us to be continually insulted by this advertising, and consequently this pursuit of mere plausible correctness, in defiance of human perception and feelings.
Studio Setup






I used a green screen, a rotating chair, and three wireless flashes (often only firing two). My camera is Yashica Digital auto focus …

In all cases, I gave the items as fair a chance as absolutely possible, though I didn’t take the time to buy multiples of everything, whether that would’ve been to choose the BEST stuff I could find, or pick out an average… though, you know, ALL of the Whoppers really are from Hell. I want to leave them, just so the KFC people can enjoy a little, what, maybe disappointment?