Freelance journalist and author Suzanne Schlosberg wrote because she was so upset over a New York Times story, “The Chip That Stacks Adds a Multigrain Twist,” that she wanted us to review it. I thought anyone who feels so strongly about something should review it herself. So she did. And here is Suzanne’s guest post:
I was flabbergasted when I read this New York Times piece on Procter & Gamble’s new entry into the potato-chip market: multigrain Pringles. The story accepts at face value P&G’s misleading marketing pitch — that “multigrain” is equivalent to “healthy.” When I sent a link to my nutritionist friend Cynthia Sass., M.S., R.D., she replied: “Did you notice it says ‘advertising’ in the top left corner? It must be a paid ad that resembles an article.”
Actually, it’s not. It’s a business story that ran in the Media & Advertising section. Though the story didn’t appear on the health pages, it should have made clear that multigrain simply means that more than one grain is included in the product — not that the product is necessarily nutritious.
What’s more, the story confuses “multigrain” with “whole grain,” here:
Mr. Bergsma (Pringles marketing director) said that the multigrain Pringles campaign was devised to appeal to people 35 and older, a group that tends to be more aware of calories and sodium content and that also looks to keep the pounds off with whole grains.
Even more egregious: It’s not until the 11th paragraph, and only in parentheses, that the story mentions that — oh, by the way — the new Pringles actually aren’t any more nutritious than original Pringles. (Even so, multigrain Pringles, which are made from rice, corn, wheat and black beans in addition to dehydrated potatoes, have about the same amount of sodium and calories as regular Pringles.)
The story might also have mentioned that multigrain Pringles, like original Pringles, have 1 measly gram of fiber.
Cynthia Sass told me that misleading articles like this one have a real impact on her clients’ perceptions about what’s healthy and what’s not. She said: “Whether it’s sugar-free, low-fat or multigrain, when processed foods are being presented as ‘healthy’ they become perceived as healthy, even if they’re not. Foods that earn a health halo, deserved or not, are often consumed more frequently or without regard to calories, let alone overall nutritional value. I think it can lead to people truly thinking they’re eating healthfully then wondering why they aren’t losing weight or don’t have energy.”
Thank you, Suzanne, for your contribution and for joining us in the quest to help consumers scrutinize claims made for new treatments, tests, products, procedures — and potato chips.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Ken Leebow
July 12, 2010 at 3:40 pmUm, it’s a potato chip. I don’t think the average bear believes potato chips are healthy.
By the way, if you missed Stephen Colbert’s hilarious Pringles routine, I recommend watching it: http://bit.ly/a4NohD
GSka
August 16, 2011 at 8:03 pmI just bought some and they don’t taste very good. I too chuckled at the “multi grain” claim. Maybe why that’s why they were on sale for $1.50 for the super stack.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like