Food companies cut 6.4 trillion calories — four-fold over 2010 pledge

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Northern Logan, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 11:38 a.m.

    Actually the win win is even better for the companies than you have stated DN. The food companies have people so focused on calories by design that people lose out on what matters most. The calorie war or counting isn't the most effect measure to control weight. It's much more about the sodium content and the sugar content and the preservatives than it will ever be concerning calories.

  • DN Subscriber 2 SLC, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:53 a.m.

    Near the bottom:
    "The foundation pledged to reduce the calories as part of an agreement with a group of nonprofit organizations and made the 2010 announcement as part of first lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to combat childhood obesity."

    Translation- the food companies kowtowed to the Big Nanny State.

    The flip side is that they can cut some of the higher calorie ingredients an replace them with water and increase their profit margin, or simply sell slightly smaller packages.

    Win-win for everyone except the consumer whose freedom to choose is diminished.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 9, 2014 8:50 a.m.

    "Marks says he believes that companies' efforts to package smaller servings — 100 calorie packs of popular snacks, for example — and smaller cans of sugary drinks may have contributed to the reduction in calories."

    What a **ridiculous** article!

    Of course the calorie count will be reduced as the size/amounts of the products are reduced! The only important point was one for which the reporter seemed blissfully oblivious. That is, the amounts go down but the **price** stays the same....or goes up!

    There is nothing laudatory about the technique of squeezing more profits from consumers b, either stealthily or via some gesture of compliance with another overreaching governmental edict (in this case to "reduce calories"), diminishing the amount one gets for what one pays.

    That most annoying part about all of this is the fact that people, like this reporter, are so clueless they think this is a good thing.