手機(jī)版
To start with, food companies are focusing now more than ever on creating compelling packaging and in-store marketing. In 2006, food companies spent $195 million, or 12 percent of their total marketing outlay, to target consumers in-store, where 89 percent of the products they were advertising contain high levels of sugar, sodium, and/or saturated fat.
首先，食品公司越來(lái)越重視吸引眼球的食品包裝和店內(nèi)營(yíng)銷。2006年，食品公司花費(fèi)了1億9千5百萬(wàn)美金相當(dāng)于12%的營(yíng)銷支出在店內(nèi)營(yíng)銷上，推廣的食品中89%含有高水平的糖份、納和飽和脂肪。
In-store and packaging-based promotion includes everything from putting athletes on boxes to sweepstakes, and from in-box prizes to products that boast philanthropic donations with every purchase. Although there has been some self-regulation within the industry, it has applied more extensively to television advertising than packaging. (Remember how long General Mill’s self-imposed "Smart Labeling" program lasted? Less than three months!)
店內(nèi)營(yíng)銷和立足于產(chǎn)品包裝的推廣方式包括把運(yùn)動(dòng)員的形象印在包裝上到一些比賽，包裝內(nèi)附送獎(jiǎng)品到將單次購(gòu)買捆綁與捐贈(zèng)捆綁。盡管有著相關(guān)的規(guī)管條例，但其主要應(yīng)用在了電視廣告上而非包裝上。（記得通用磨坊的“智能標(biāo)簽”么？只推出三個(gè)月就被迫叫停了�。�
Second of all, packaging is designed to keep parents from looking at the nutritional label. By cherry-picking nutritional (and more likely pseudo-nutritional) information available in huge lettering on the front of colorful boxes, food companies aim to appease any health or allergen concerns parents might have. But "Great source of calcium!", "No Trans Fat!", and "Gluten Free!" are weak stand-ins for the full nutritional picture.
其次，包裝被設(shè)計(jì)成了防止父母查看營(yíng)養(yǎng)標(biāo)簽的形式。通過(guò)在彩色包裝的正面用巨大的字體顯示精心編寫的營(yíng)養(yǎng)信息（極有可能是假的），食品公司企圖緩和父母?jìng)兛赡艽嬖诘膶?duì)健康和過(guò)敏問(wèn)題的擔(dān)憂。但“富含鈣質(zhì)！”，“不含反式脂肪！”，以及“不含谷蛋白！”根本不能取代完整的營(yíng)養(yǎng)信息。
And finally, almost all nutrition labels on food targeted at children use the recommended daily intake values for an adult who consumes 2,000 calories a day. This happens even on food for toddlers, who need just HALF the calories of adults, according to the American Heart Association.
最后，幾乎所有針對(duì)兒童的食品營(yíng)養(yǎng)標(biāo)簽都使用了成人的推薦每日攝入量，后者每日消耗的能量是2000卡。甚至在針對(duì)幼兒的食品標(biāo)簽上也出現(xiàn)了同樣情況，而幼兒每日所需熱量只是成人的一半（據(jù)美國(guó)心臟學(xué)會(huì)）。
The result is that all of the percentage daily values on the nutrition labels are completely skewed. While a cup of cereal will have the same 26 grams of carbohydrates regardless of who is eating it, that will account for 9 percent of the recommended daily intake of carbohydrates for adults and 18 percent for a two-year-old. So even if parents' eyes do make it as far as the nutrition label, there is another chance to be misled.
結(jié)果是所有營(yíng)養(yǎng)標(biāo)簽上的每日所需營(yíng)養(yǎng)百分比都被扭曲了。不論食用者是誰(shuí)，一杯麥片含有相同的26克碳水化合物，這能滿足成人每日碳水化合物推薦攝入量的9%及2歲兒童每日碳水化合物推薦攝入量的18%。因此，即使父母?jìng)兊幕鹧劢鹁?huì)看下營(yíng)養(yǎng)標(biāo)簽，也都可能被誤導(dǎo)。
