Or both?
And does the food industry's efforts at philanthropic "goodness" trump those very same efforts' marketing and health "badness"?
I imagine it'll depend on the program.
Today I want you to consider Coca-Cola's involvement with Breakfast Clubs of Canada. Breakfast Clubs is a national non-profit dedicated to providing services and funding school breakfast programs.
Breakfast Clubs' fundraising regularly includes corporate sponsors and I was sent this video about Coca-Cola's involvement by someone who felt very strongly that Coca-Cola's impact was positive, not negative.
Email subscribers, to watch the video (which I strongly encourage), you'll need to visit the blog itself and I'll embed it here:
What the video very clearly demonstrates is that Coca-Cola's involvement includes the provision of Coca Cola Co.'s Minute Maid orange juice. Breakfast Clubs of Canada President Daniel Germain states,
"We needed Minute Maid to make sure that our breakfast program was meeting the level of nutrition"And of course every kid's breakfast will therefore include a glass of OJ, and from what I can gather, Coca-Cola's contribution isn't monetary, it's solely product.
So is OJ a healthy choice?
I sure don't think so. And mine isn't a weight related concern, it's a product based concern. Sugar water's not healthy for anyone regardless of whether or not that sugar water contains Vitamin C. The Canadian Pediatric Society recommends we limit kids' juice to a maximal 1/2 a cup per day, and tellingly, they place no limits on actual oranges.
And what's in it for Coca Cola? The chance to build lifelong Minute Maid drinkers, and perhaps more importantly lifelong Minute Maid drinkers who believe wholeheartedly that juice is a fruit equivalent. Moreover their involvement undoubtedly also leads to schools, trusted learning institutions, to literally teach children that juice as a healthy choice - a message that's very clearly being promoted to their benefit by their partner, Breakfast Clubs of Canada in the video up above.
So should Coca Cola be commended for charitably serving 119,000 glasses of orange juice to kids daily, or is this just plain, old, marketing?
I'm guessing you know what I think. Would love to hear from you.
Posts
My grandmother's juice glasses were tiny. Today's "juice glass" can hold ten times the sugar. We no longer buy or serve juice unless its a special occasion brunch.
ReplyDeleteA scam by any other name is still a scam. In this instance the scam comes under the guise of philanthropy, aimed at flogging some bilge featuring a toxic ingredient (sugar) to youngsters and their easily deceived parents for Coke's profit and glory.
ReplyDeleteEven “not from concentrate” OJ is heated, stripped of flavour, stored in huge vats for up to a year, and then reflavored (by fragrance companies, the same ones that formulate perfumes for Dior and Calvin Klein), to engineer flavour packs to add back to the juice to make it taste fresh before it is packaged and sold.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amazon.com/Squeezed-About-Orange-Agrarian-Studies/dp/0300164556/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1312826335&sr=8-1
Do parents really want this perversion for their kids?
I think this breakfast program is an amazing endeavour. However, the fact is that Coke is just giving product, makes it purely a marketing program for them (and publicity - how many times were they mentioned in that video?). Giving cash to be used in whatever manner the program deemed suitable would be philanthropy. Giving the OJ anonymously would be philanthropy. This is marketing. The only upside is that this marketing may also help promote the program, but unfortunately at the cost of creating a bunch more "sugar addicts."
ReplyDeleteIn my home growing up we rarely had juice and pop was a treat. We drank water and milk. And now, I don't like sweet drinks at all - not that I don't have other issues, but at least I'm grateful I don't have to fight those empty calories too. But for me, this is similar to seeing the Food Bank bins filled with boxes of Instant Macaroni Dinners and sugary cereals. Real food can be as affordable, but it is more work.
Just FYI, in Ontario, schools get provincial funding for breakfast programs and the funding comes along with 'nutrition guidelines'. Now these guidelines are far from perfect(as are any set of nutrition guidelines I've ever seen), but they do state that juice should only be served once per week. The rational was to limit juice consumption, so at least that's a step in the right direction. The problem is, I'd bet a lot of schools don't follow this guideline, and while I'd like them to limit the once a week juice serving size to 1/2 a cup, I don't think this is written in the guidelines.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I didn't grow up drinking much juice and so I do buy it on occasion now but I'm never tempted to have more than a very small glass once and a while. I don't think juice is evil, but it's not something to drink often.
My vote is marketing. Hands down.
ReplyDeleteIn my home,juice is a considered a treat. And that's real juice, not the "punch" drinks that look like they should contain some resemblance of fruit (but don't). Juice boxes tend to be treats on hot lunch days, picnics, or something similar.
It seems pretty obvious that Coca-Cola is benefiting from being able to expose children to their brand on a day-to-day basis, and teach them that juice is part of a healthy diet.
I do, however, think that the concept of breakfast clubs is fantastic. I know that skipping breakfast as an adult leaves me cranky and tired. Plus, it's hard to focus. As a child, you're also counting on that nutrition to help you grow. I'm pretty strict about making sure my kids have something substantial and healthy to start the day off, but juice is rarely on the menu.
Philanthropy that derives profit or exposure is clandestine marketing. The origins of Philanthropy were derived from the love of humanity and providing benefits to humanity.
ReplyDeleteIf Coca Cola wishes to be philanthropic in this endevour then it might seek to provide oranges instead of juice, free range locally farmed eggs and perhaps some locally produced organic yoghurt. It would also provide the scheme in house at schools and not publicly market it's program for the sake of exposure. This would provide benefits to humanity, providing benefits to the children and to the local producers and therby deriving no profit or public exposure in which future profit would be derived.
I agree with Stacey. That isn't Philanthropy at all, just pure marketing strategy. Fruit juice can't be compared to the nutritional quality of fresh fruit. I tried to post a comment on their youtube video saying that but it is moderated, lets see if they approve it.
ReplyDelete