How Michelle Obama is fighting to make excessive chocolate consumption legal but rare—and giving Big Candy a boost in the process.
In 1998, a Colorado handyman was snowmobiling in the mountains outside of Steamboat Springs when he got swept up in an avalanche that buried his vehicle and left him stranded in a blizzard. Provisioned with nothing more than two butane lighters and a Snickers bar, the man endured 40 mph winds and near-zero temperatures for five days and four nights as rescue teams struggled to locate him. Luckily, the Snickers bar he’d carried was the king-sized version. Every one of its 510 calories helped him persevere through the course of his ordeal.
In the future, anyone caught in similar circumstances better hope for a faster search and rescue team. Mars Inc., the manufacturer of Snickers and many other convenience store treats, has decided to phase out chocolate products that exceed 250 calories per portion. By the end of 2013, consumers will no longer be able to purchase king-sized Snickers bars. Instead, they’ll have to make do with a product that Mars introduced in 2009, Snickers 2 To Go, which features two 220-calorie bars in a single “resealable” wrapper. In addition, Mars will also need to reduce the size of a standard Snickers bar. It currently contains 280 calories and thus exceeds the new calorie cap by 12 percent.
Mars is implementing the 250-calorie threshold as part of an agreement with Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA), a non-profit organization that aims to “broker meaningful commitments” from commercial food manufacturers like Mars to “end childhood obesity.” PHA was founded in 2010 in conjunction with the Let’s Move! program, First Lady Michelle Obama’s federally funded government initiative that aims to shape up the nation’s tubby youth through a vigorous regimen of legislation, regulation, and mass jumping jacks. Mrs. Obama serves as PHA’s honorary chair, and according to its website, PHA’s mandate is to “monitor and publicly report on the progress” of its private-sector partners like Mars, and, more generally, to “make the healthy choice the easy choice.”
While Snickers may seem like an immutable staple of American culture, it’s actually been quite protean since its 1930 introduction. In its initial incarnation, for example, it weighed 2.5 ounces. In 1941, it hit 2.75 ounces, but by 1958, it had shrunk to less than half that size, to a wispy 1.25 ounces—clearly, mid-century snackers were much more easily satisfied than the hungry souls of Depression-era America. At some point after that mid-century low, Snicker started an upward climb, hitting 1.80 ounces in 1981, upsizing again in 1986, and eventually settling on its current weight of 2.07 ounces around a decade ago.
In England, the standard Snickers bar was slightly larger than its American counterpart until just a few years ago. In 2008, however, Mars U.K. reduced its size from 62.5 grams to 58 grams (or 2.2 ounces to 2.04 ounces). It didn’t publicize this change, but according to the Daily Mail, when observers started noting that Mars U.K. was still charging the old price for the newly shrunken bar, the company explained that it had downsized its products to “help tackle the nation’s obesity crisis.”
That Mars U.K. had failed to publicize this noble effort in any way cast doubts upon the sincerity of its claims, and under further prodding, the Daily Mail notes, Mars U.K. acknowledged that “continued cost increases over the last few years” had been the real catalyst behind the decision to reduce the size of its bars.
Apparently, the various outposts of the Mars empire learned from this experience. In 2009, when Mars Snackfood Australia reduced the size of its bars by 11 percent, it prefaced the change with press releases and advertisements citing its desire to cater to consumer demand for smaller portion sizes. And now here in the United States, Mars Inc. has further refined this approach by getting the First Lady and the Partnership for a Healthier America to position its cost-cutting measures as a mandate for improving public health.
On the one hand, everybody wins. Big Candy gets an endorsement from the First Lady and her government-flavored organizations that lends credence to its supposed civic altruism. The First Lady, Lets Move!, and PHA get bullet-point fodder that show they really are making a difference in the fight against obesity. Hopeless Snickers addicts get a relatively painless way to ameliorate the negative consequences of their habit. (If you consume a Snickers bar every workday at 3 PM, and that bar is downsized from 280 to 250 calories, you’ll decrease your annual calorie intake by 7,500 calories and thus lose a little over two pounds.)
But what about the children? Surely we want our nation’s youth to be morally fit as well as physically fit—and what sort of example is being set for them when corporate dissembling is not just tolerated but actually rewarded simply because it happens to line up nicely with some powerful person’s worthy cause?
The new Snickers calorie cap is also notable for the way in which it illuminates the way anti-obesity advocates tend to view the world. “The public needs all the help we can get and it is crucial that food companies get on board with this,” Kristie Lancaster, an associate professor of Nutrition and Public Health at New York University, exclaimed to the New York Daily News in the wake of Mars’ announcement. “This is both the manufacturer responsibility as well as a personal responsibility. There is a huge problem when most of the choices out there are bigger and more calories. It makes it so much harder for people to do what they need to do to be healthy.”
In reality, Mars has offered smaller versions of Snickers bars for decades. A “fun-size” Snickers bar contains 80 calories. A Snickers Mini contains 42.5 calories. And while these items must be purchased in packages that contain multiple pieces, Mars also makes numerous bars which can be purchased individually that contain 200 or fewer calories. According to Vending Times, 3 Musketeers Coconut, M&M’s Dark Chocolate Mint, and Dove Chocolate Singles all come in under that limit. Similarly, a standard package of Reese’s Peanut Cups contains 210 calories, as does a standard Hershey’s bar. A York Peppermint Patty has 140 calories. If you can’t find at least a half dozen treats on virtually any well-stocked candy rack in America that contain about the same amount of calories or less than a Starbucks Grande Latte, you’re just not looking very hard.
And of course your patronage of the candy rack is wholly elective. In theory, at least, PHA champions the conceit of “choice architecture” or “libertarian paternalism,” which holds that institutions like the government can help people make better decisions for their lives not by compelling them to act in specific ways but simply by making “good” choices easier to choose than “bad” choices. Thus PHA’s mandate “to make the healthy choice the easy choice.”
The Let’s Move! campaign and its advocates sound similar themes. Here, for example, is Eddie Gehman Kohan, founding editor of Obama Foodorama, which bills itself as “the blog of record about White House food initiatives,” discussing Let’s Move! in a PBS interview. “Let’s Move! has been pointed to by a lot of critics as an example of big government intervening and the Obama administration wanting to expand the role of government to the point that it controls what American citizens eat,” she exclaims. “For its part, the campaign says it’s about giving people choice and educating them about food and nutrition and physical activity and allowing them to have access to a wide range of choices.”
Certainly there are examples where this holds true. Installing a salad bar in a school where none existed before will likely increase access to a wider variety of fruits and vegetables. Identifying healthy food choices with highly visible labeling, as Walmart is doing with its “Great for You” campaign, can help educate consumers and encourage them to make better choices without reducing their ability to ultimately decide for themselves what they want to eat.
In the case of Mars’ candy bar purges and calorie caps, however, “making the healthy choice the easy choice” is achieved not by expanding choices but rather by narrowing them—call it “Yes, we can’t” progressivism. While this tactic may improve corporate profits and help the most avid Snickers eaters shed a few pounds, the Orwellian doublespeak is sure to leave a bad taste in one’s mouth.
IP: Logged
12:06 PM
PFF
System Bot
WhiteDevil88 Member
Posts: 8518 From: Coastal California Registered: Mar 2007
"Mars is implementing the 250-calorie threshold as part of an agreement with Partnership for a Healthier America (PHA), a non-profit organization that aims to “broker meaningful commitments” from commercial food manufacturers like Mars to “end childhood obesity.”
I am quoting an Labrador1 cut and paste. - Shoot me.
I'll bet they agreed because sales were down on the larger bar. Freebee.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 03-01-2012).]
IP: Logged
12:50 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
They should flat out ban all candy. Who cares if most people can use it in moderation. We could declare a war on candy, set up a task force. it's for your own good and we know whats best for us,,,, er I mean you!
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 03-01-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:28 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9831 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
The only reason this stuff matters to government is becuase we let them socialize us in the first place. Now they have a vested interest in getting the best bang for their buck and begin to tax and restrict what they deem as bad for you.
They should flat out ban all candy. Who cares if most people can use it in moderation. We could declare a war on candy, set up a task force. it's for your own good and we know whats best for us,,,, er I mean you!
If the gov really wanted to make money they would make their own and sell and tax it. lol They could put vitamin powder and fiber powder in it...
this is stupid, not that i like the first lady but seriously?? its not like Mars couldnt have done it on its own and clearly they will be selling the same friggin thing only they will have 2 smaller pieces so whats the big deal? not like similar things havent happened before.
Yes they made small size smaller but won't reduce the price. This is a giant scam. They blame X.org or Govmnt but really a plan to hide price increases. They know people will still buy the candy. Smaller always cost more most days now. Not hurting Mars any....
Same thing Pepsi et al... Small size in vending machine at local school etc but not reducing cost to you in many cases.
Like Most Companies want you to switch to paperless billing... Say "Be Green" but really only cut cost to general that bill and mail them. Company saves millions, even billions, for these "Green" plans but you get nothing in return.
------------------ Dr. Ian Malcolm: Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should. (Jurassic Park)
Didn't the government already tell McDonalds and KFC and Dunkin' Donuts a hand full of years back that they couldn't fry my food in the same kind of grease they had always used, the type that gave them that unique flavor that I grew up with and the taste that drove the reason I did business with them? Something about the government saying that eating foods fried in that type of fat would raise medical costs? How was my medical cost their business, again? I forget...
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 03-01-2012).]
Didn't the government already tell McDonalds and KFC and Dunkin' Donuts a hand full of years back that they couldn't fry my food in the same kind of grease they had always used, the type that gave them that unique flavor that I grew up with and the taste that drove the reason I did business with them? Something about the government saying that eating foods fried in that type of fat would raise medical costs? How was my medical cost their business, again? I forget...
KFC is my other job... we switched to Low Linolenic Soy Bean oil in 2006 or 2007. Before the switch, when I worked with the fryers and had to change them, the grease was a nasty thick white sludge until it started to heat up, then after the switch, the stuff was more liquid at room temp.
IP: Logged
10:43 PM
Formula88 Member
Posts: 53788 From: Raleigh NC Registered: Jan 2001
Yes they made small size smaller but won't reduce the price. This is a giant scam. They blame X.org or Govmnt but really a plan to hide price increases. They know people will still buy the candy. Smaller always cost more most days now. Not hurting Mars any....
Same thing Pepsi et al... Small size in vending machine at local school etc but not reducing cost to you in many cases.
Like Most Companies want you to switch to paperless billing... Say "Be Green" but really only cut cost to general that bill and mail them. Company saves millions, even billions, for these "Green" plans but you get nothing in return.
Great post Ogre!
IP: Logged
11:57 PM
Mar 2nd, 2012
Tony Kania Member
Posts: 20794 From: The Inland Northwest Registered: Dec 2008
Where is Nancy Regan when you need to start a war on candy bars? What's next, smaller Atomic Fireballs? (That would pizz me off. I love me my Fireballs. )
What ever happened to self control?
Bad thought.... "introducing the Presidental candy bar.... the cream filled barry bar. Every bite's a blast!"
Tony
IP: Logged
12:00 AM
nitroheadz28 Member
Posts: 4774 From: Brooklyn, NY Registered: Mar 2010
Oh my god, they cut the king size candy bar in half! Obama want my gunz!
There are a couple of problems. First is "they".
What constitutional basis is there for the "they" in this instance, to take away the constitutionally given civil liberties of the candy manufacturer and the citizen purchaser?
Just because it is a trivial issue, generally speaking, does that mean that "they" can then throw aside someone's freedoms just because "they" want to?
Second, you went from candy bars to guns. Well, "they" ALREADY WANT to take away the constitutionally given liberty to own guns. But what happens if they come for one of YOUR liberties? What if "they" want to mandate how much horse power your car engine can have? What if "they" want to mandate the flow rates of your shower head, or your toilet flush volume? (oops).
What if "they" want to decide what you can listen to on the radio or read on the internet? Personally, I don't find the issue of the amount of calories in a single candy bar worth fighting over.
What I DO feel is worth fighting over, is giving "them" the impression that it is ok for them to take away constitutionally given liberties because "they" think it is what is best.
Edited to give an example:
I am COMPLETELY anti-smoking. Hate the health effects. Hate the smell of it. That is my starting point.
I was VEHEMENTLY AGAINST the law in Wisconsin that banned cigarette smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin. Well, yeah, but it does something YOU like. You hate smoking when you are trying to eat.
I don't care. I hate a restaurant owner's freedom being violated, and an individual's freedom of choice being violated MORE than I hate the smell of cigarettes.
So, when "they" violate someone's freedoms in a way that you benefit from, or don't care about, do you make a joke about it, or just ignore it, or do you stand up against it so that when it IS something you care about, "they" know better than to try it?
[This message has been edited by frontal lobe (edited 03-02-2012).]
IP: Logged
10:04 AM
PFF
System Bot
fierobear Member
Posts: 27103 From: Safe in the Carolinas Registered: Aug 2000
So, when "they" violate someone's freedoms in a way that you benefit from, or don't care about, do you make a joke about it, or just ignore it, or do you stand up against it so that when it IS something you care about, "they" know better than to try it?
Doc, you're talking to Stimpy. He simply CAN'T pass up a good opportunity to insult someone. It's his nature.
IP: Logged
10:27 AM
frontal lobe Member
Posts: 9042 From: brookfield,wisconsin Registered: Dec 1999
That went away when parents were told not to teach children "No.", and to reason with them.
One of THE most beneficial life skills a person can learn (whether taught by parents, or somehow developed on its own) is the ability to say NO.
And then even if someone doesn't LEARN to say NO, if there are CONSEQUENCES to not being able to say no, then the pain of those consequences will motivate many people to say NO. But in our society, it has been mistakenly decided it is compassionate to eliminate consequences and to not have people take RESPONSIBILITY. Michele Obama is basically saying to the American public, "Since you can't control yourselves and say no to candy as much as you should, then I am taking it away from you."
So what is up next for her? Because there are a LOT of other obesity producers in our culture.
Soda pops in containers that have maximum of 250 calories?
Fast food sandwiches and french fry quantities that have a maximum of 250 calories. Mini-size me?
Originally posted by frontal lobe: There are a couple of problems. First is "they".
What constitutional basis is there for the "they" in this instance, to take away the constitutionally given civil liberties of the candy manufacturer and the citizen purchaser?
Just because it is a trivial issue, generally speaking, does that mean that "they" can then throw aside someone's freedoms just because "they" want to?
Second, you went from candy bars to guns. Well, "they" ALREADY WANT to take away the constitutionally given liberty to own guns. But what happens if they come for one of YOUR liberties? What if "they" want to mandate how much horse power your car engine can have? What if "they" want to mandate the flow rates of your shower head, or your toilet flush volume? (oops).
What if "they" want to decide what you can listen to on the radio or read on the internet? Personally, I don't find the issue of the amount of calories in a single candy bar worth fighting over.
What I DO feel is worth fighting over, is giving "them" the impression that it is ok for them to take away constitutionally given liberties because "they" think it is what is best.
Edited to give an example:
I am COMPLETELY anti-smoking. Hate the health effects. Hate the smell of it. That is my starting point.
I was VEHEMENTLY AGAINST the law in Wisconsin that banned cigarette smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin. Well, yeah, but it does something YOU like. You hate smoking when you are trying to eat.
I don't care. I hate a restaurant owner's freedom being violated, and an individual's freedom of choice being violated MORE than I hate the smell of cigarettes.
So, when "they" violate someone's freedoms in a way that you benefit from, or don't care about, do you make a joke about it, or just ignore it, or do you stand up against it so that when it IS something you care about, "they" know better than to try it?
First question. Who is "they"?
From Wikipedia... "A replacement for the king size Snickers bar was launched in the UK in 2004 and designed to conform to the September 2004 Food and Drink Federation (FDF) "Manifesto for Food and Health". Part of the FDF manifesto was seven pledges of action to encourage the food and drink industry to be more health conscious.[7] Reducing portion size, clearer food labels, and reduction of the levels of fat, sugar and salt were among the FDF pledges. Mars Incorporated pledged to phase out their king-size bars in 2005 and replace them with shareable bars. A Mars spokesman said: "Our king-size bars that come in one portion will be changed so they are shareable or can be consumed on more than one occasion. The name king-size will be phased out."
So, apparently Michelle Obama is not the one who thought this up. While Govermental interference was the culprit in Socialist Britain, it sounds like we can thank marketing for this one. No "freedoms" have been eliminated, you can still be an obese diabetic and cram yourself full of chocolate covered nougat. I have been buying the Snickers twin bar for years, I'm certain Before 2008. They have been sold next to the king size and the regular size. It seems to me that this is a marketing decision, not regulation. "Partnership"s connote a voluntary participation. I don't see anywhere that Mars is being forced into anything.
Guns. I don't have a gun, don't need one, don't want one. But just like I support your right to cram your gullet with sugar, I support your right to live in fear surrounded by weapons. Just like I don't see anyone taking away your right to kill yourself with diabetes, I don't see Michelle Obama, or Mars Candy for that matter, attempting to take away guns. Sorry, I don't buy it.
As far as your support of public smoking and diabetes, I guess that keeps you busy with cancerous diabetics, so I understand. My right to enjoy a meal without breathing toxic fumes come secondary to the rights of people who would pollute my airspace. is that what you are saying?
IP: Logged
12:53 PM
htexans1 Member
Posts: 9114 From: Clear Lake City/Houston TX Registered: Sep 2001
So much for freedom's and being allowed to eat drink smoke and be merry.
Doesnt the Gov. have more important things to do like maybe balance a budget, Finish an invasion? How about we let natural selection takes it course and if people are dying off because of too many Snickers bars than so be it. Or if they die from a cancer caused by smoking them its one less person drawing S.S. These are all things that people have been made aware they are not good for you and continue to use them anyways. Elliminating a large candy bar wont stop people from eating too much. It just requires them to buy more. Just another way to later add a tax.. Charge a special fee because its not good for you. Cig, taxed differently, Gas taxed differently, Expensive cars are taxed with a Luxury tax, Soon fast food will have a special tax and junk food too.. Just another way to generate more money in the sake of protecting us from ourselves.. Screw em..
[This message has been edited by rstubie (edited 03-02-2012).]
IP: Logged
01:50 PM
PK Member
Posts: 1249 From: Oxford, England Registered: Sep 2001
So, apparently Michelle Obama is not the one who thought this up. While Govermental interference was the culprit in Socialist Britain, it sounds like we can thank marketing for this one. No "freedoms" have been eliminated, you can still be an obese diabetic and cram yourself full of chocolate covered nougat.
It seems to me that this is a marketing decision, not regulation. "Partnership"s connote a voluntary participation. I don't see anywhere that Mars is being forced into anything.
Guns. I don't have a gun, don't need one, don't want one. But just like I support your right to cram your gullet with sugar, I support your right to live in fear surrounded by weapons.
As far as your support of public smoking and diabetes, I guess that keeps you busy with cancerous diabetics, so I understand. My right to enjoy a meal without breathing toxic fumes come secondary to the rights of people who would pollute my airspace. is that what you are saying?
Good points. You are right. The "they" isn't the government. So I have no problem with the way this was done.
Michele Obama used her influence to get Partnership for a Healthier America to pressure candy manufacturers. I'm fine with that. So that answers that question.
Regarding YOUR question, no, I wasn't saying that at all and not sure why you would wonder whether I was.
Because I support the publics right to have the OPTION of purchasing candy bars of whatever size they want, does NOT therefore mean I support OVER consumption, obesity, or diabetes. Some americans can eat candy bars and not have a problem with those issues. Those that do have a problem should control themselves, and not have some agency make it ILLEGAL to have them (and in this case, it isn't an issue of legal, as you pointed out).
Because I support a business owner having the right to decide whether he wants to allow cigarette smoking in HIS PRIVATELY OWNED business, does NOT mean I am pro-smoking.
" My right to enjoy a meal without breathing toxic fumes come secondary to the rights of people who would pollute my airspace."
You CAN enjoy a meal without breathing toxic fumes. Choose a restaurant that is non-smoking, or that has a non-smoking section. That's what I always did.
Or make your own meal in your own home.
You aren't having any rights deprived.
If someone bought and owns a restaurant, I do not have a RIGHT to eat at that restaurant. It is HIS/HER choice whom to serve. If they want to allow smoking and not provide me with a toxic fume free environment, that is THEIR right to choose. My RIGHT is to choose not to eat there. There are plenty of OTHER choices I can make.
Your accusation that I would support the rights of people for the purpose of them becoming diabetic, or having smoking related diseases, which would then provide me WORK and FINANCIAL GAIN is erroneous AND insulting.
I'm not really sure why you would decide to treat me that way. I don't think I have presented myself in a way over the years that would support that kind of an accusation, and I don't think I've personally treated you in a way that would make you want to come to that kind of a conclusion.
We could declare a war on candy, set up a task force. it's for your own good and we know whats best for us,,,, er I mean you!
)
