Roman 1
Sofia Roman
Professor Johnson
University 111
November 6, 2013
Rhetorical Analysis
Branding is a marketing strategy used by food companies to boost product
sales by creating an image to associate their goods with. The investigative novel
Salt, Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss reveals how the food giants are able to keep
consumers hooked on processed foods, which get much of their appeal from
branding and packaging. Furthermore, food companies will use branding that
appeals to children with hopes that they being consuming their product at a young
age. The affect that branding has on children is measured in Elsvier’s article “The
impact of food branding on children’s eating behavior and obesity “ by Kathleen L.
Keller, Laura G. Kuilema, Normal Lee, Joyce Yoon, Brittany Mascaro, Anne-Laure
Combes, Bryan Deutsch, Kathryn Sorte, and Jason C.G. Halford, published in 2012.
This article was originally a presentation given at the Society for the Study of
Ingestive Behavior Annual Meeting in Clearwater, Florida and examines three
laboratory-based studies testing the impact of common food brands on children’s
eating habits. Salt, Sugar, Fat, dissects the three compounds that are found in the
foods being marketed to kids. Both sources address the topic of food branding and
assess why foods high in sugar, salt, and fat are so popular among children as well as
the general public. While “The impact of food branding on children’s eating
behavior and obesity “ investigates what type of children are susceptible to
Roman 2
branding and how branding can be used for good, Salt, Sugar, Fat emphasizes the
strategies food companies used to transform children into “heavy users” of their
product.
Salt, Sugar, Fat is trying to inform young adults of how food companies make food
almost addictive as a warning to maintain better eating habits or consider making
healthier nutritional choices. Young adults especially need to be weary of how much
sugar, salt, and fat is in their diet because it is easier to make worse food decisions in
an environment where home made meals are no longer provided in a family setting.
Moss wants his audience to see past the logos and into the labels because heavily
branded products usually have less nutritional value. In addition, Moss targets the
general public to be aware of just how serious the obesity epidemic in America is
because food companies create the products that put the public at risk for obesity.
On the other hand, “The impact of food branding on children’s eating behavior and
obesity” is trying to persuade the scientific community to further studies on what
types of children are more susceptible to branding because it can trigger overeating,
which is leads to obesity. The article informs schools and families of how they can
get children to eat healthier by branding or packaging healthy foods to make them
more appealing to kids. It is more practical for branding of healthy foods to begin in
smaller settings because of the lengthy process of having it handled through the
federal government. The article’s main purpose is to urge that additional studies are
done to understand the influence that branding has on kids.
Roman 3
Moss’ established credibility in Salt, Sugar, Fat derives from his role in
exposing “pink slime”, a hamburger meat extender, in affecting meat safety. This
article in the New York Times won him a Pulitzer Prize in 2009. Gaining more
insight since popularizing “pink slime”, Salt, Sugar, Fat is split up into three parts
which focus on sugar, fat, and salt in order to pinpoint how sugar creates a bliss
factor, fat creates richness in food, and salt creates amplified taste. Each of these
components is used in excess to improve satiety of processed foods. Moss first
addresses the effect branding has on children in his chapter, exploiting the biology
of a child. These companies know how to calculate the bliss point; in other words,
they determine just how much sugar will give kids a sugar high. To market these
sugary treats, companies used licensed character, fun packaging, and memorable
ads. Moss acknowledges that sugar plays a dominant role in advertising, which
influences children because they are “so gullible,” and cannot “ help but view
commercials as informational programming,”(Moss 80). Children are not the only
party mislead by food advertisements, parents also fall victim when these sugary
treats claim to have nutritional value. Moss cites one instance of misleading
advertising when the General Mill’s product, Kool-Aid, added a splash of fruit juice
in their product. However, the amount of juice is not substantial and although it was
“a mere 5 percent of the total formula… Kool-Aid managers already knew that even
a hint of fruit was worth a zillion times its weight in marketing gold,” (Moss 127).
This is what lures parents into buying the product, but kids are targeted through a
mailing list in which kids receive free General Mills magazines featuring The
Roman 4
Adventures of Kool-Aid Man. Here is how a drink made of mostly sugar, artificial
flavors and preservatives makes its way into the homes of families with young
children through misleading marketing and the presence of a jolly pitcher of KoolAid branded by General Mills.
To show that sugar and branding go hand in hand, Moss uses logos, pathos,
and ethos. Moss further explains how food companies exploit the biology of a child
in saying that the use of sugar in food can lead to overeating because of it’s affect on
the hypothalamus. The hypothalamus is a gland in the brain that communicates
whether a person is full or hungry. Logically, the desire to eat is controlled by the
amount of glucose in one’s blood and hypothalamus, so therefore excess sugar can
trick a child’s brain into thinking they are still hungry. Now, keep in mind that food
companies also launch commercials that try to teach kids that eating sugar is
desirable and fun. Moss points out a commercial for cookies where a fruit peddler
abandons his stand to eat the more desirable fruit flavored cookies. This sends the
message that cookies are preferable to fresh fruit and influence kids to make
unhealthy choices at snack time. Moss uses the appeal to emotion in showing how
upsetting it is that kids are learning to like artificial fruit flavors more than the real
thing. To further his argument, Moss cites an expert on addictive behavior, Nora
Volkow, who found parallels between food and narcotics. Both food and narcotics
produce compulsive patterns of intake, and in retrospect these children are falling
victim to the corporate food dealers. Following cues from advertisements and at the
same time following cues from the brain to keep eating, it is no surprise that
Roman 5
children are at risk for obesity due to the excess consumption of food that is always
being showcased to them through various forms of media.
The article reinforces Moss’ investigative research, but at the same time it
highlights possible solutions to counteract the influence that these food
corporations have on children. The article’s main concern is the use of branding
specifically because it could be used to make healthy foods seem more attractive
and fun to eat. Primary author, Kathleen L. Keller is a PhD in food science at Penn
State University, and works in the Department of Nutritional Sciences. The first
finding of the three studies show that food brands are an important visual cue and
that some children may overeat in their presence. The result of the second study
proves that overweight children have a cognitive bias towards branded images.
Lastly, the third study dictates that it can be effective to manipulate food-branding
cues to promote healthy food for children. Interestingly enough, advertisements
and food branding can be so effective that even the factor of taste may be
overlooked. The emotional attachment with a product name or a logo plays an
important role when deciding what to eat. The article addresses this phenomena by
referring to a blind taste test that shows that Americans prefer the taste of Pepsi,
even though Coca-Cola is more popular and was chosen over Pepsi when taste
testing it without blinding consumers. Ultimately, the Coke versus Pepsi test
“reinforce(s) the idea that branding of a product can override the products sensory
attributes,”(Keller et al 380). Another reason that branded products are so popular
among children is the lack of neophobia for the food. Neophobia is the fear of new
Roman 6
experiences. Since children are able to recognize brands from an early age, these
unhealthy foods will seem safer because they are more familiar. As noted in the
third study, a strategy to decrease levels of neophobia and promote healthy eating
can be achieved if fruits and vegetables incorporate the same visually stimulating
packaging.
The rhetorical device used in “The impact of food branding on children’s
eating behavior and obesity” is predominantly logos. To express how important it is
to curb trends of childhood obesity, the article creates a sense of urgency by
informing the reader of the risk that overweight children face in developing
cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, and hypertension. Additional studies in
childhood obesity will help to close the gap for kids who are at risk for obesity and
at risk for the more serious medical conditions associated with overeating and poor
diets. Another concerning finding is just how much exposure children have to these
toxic food products. Statistically, “ children view as many as 40,000 advertisements
for food each year, and 98% of these are promoting foods high in fat, sodium, and
sugar,” (Keller et al. 379) which is why the article wants to combat these ads with
ads for healthy food. Just as Moss noted how young children are gullible when it
comes to trusting food advertisements, the article notes that children recognize
brands at a very young age but do not understand the intentions of food
advertisements until age 7. It is nearly impossible for kids to escape the influence
from food companies, as “The food industry reaches out to children through and
increasing number of avenues, including television, the Internet, billboards, and
Roman 7
product placement in school,”(Keller et al. 381). The effect of food branding is
physiologically and psychologically relevant, which is why the article uses the three
studies as concrete evidence of the influence that branding and advertisements have
in contributing to the obesity epidemic.
All in all, Moss reveals the strategies used by food companies to tempt
children while Keller reveals possible strategies to compete with these food
companies in reaching children. These two sources wish to raise awareness of how
to treat this issue of obesity within the general public. Both Moss and Keller et al
agree that waiting for government intervention in the obesity crisis is ineffective
because “even if regulations are passed, they are unlikely to happen anytime soon,”
(Keller et al. 385). To employ this tactic, the article urges that these changes in
packaging be made on a smaller scale such as in school and by parents at home. One
challenge that both sources address in the implementation of better eating is the
fact that unhealthy foods are so convenient and accessible. While the article
acknowledges the toxic food environment defined by convenience, Moss states
“convenience is the great additive which must be designed, built in, combined,
blended, interwoven, injected, inserted, or otherwise incorporated in products,”
(Moss 60). Moss’s writing style evokes a sense of drama meant to astonish the
reader and ensure that the food companies will go to any length to entice customers
no matter what the tactics are or what harmful ingredients are added to the food.
The article reaches out to the medical community. By conducting additional studies,
scientist and scholars can obtain the information necessary to change the lives of
Roman 8
children who grow up in the midst of this commercial society, where misleading
food advertisements and branding can lead to unhealthy eating patterns that put
children and families at risk for multiple health complications. Moss writes to
inform and entertain the consumers of unhealthy food and Keller targets scholars
and scientist concerned with public health.
The most important lesson to take from both Salt, Sugar, Fat and The impact
of food branding on children’s eating behavior and obesity” is to look beyond the
cartoon characters, vibrant colors, and unique packaging that characterize the art of
branding. Look beyond the intended image of a food product and read into the
nutritional label. It is not surprising that the more embellished food products are
the most damaging to health and the most sought after by kids. If additional studies
on childhood obesity are performed, there will be a better understanding of what
types of children are the most susceptible to branding and in which ways branding
can be used to remedy diets at an early age. Being informed of how damaging these
products are to an entire population is alarming enough to make changes in one’s
personal life. Instead of waiting for society to change, consider the possibilities for
healthy changes on local levels. Food branding is a powerful psychological tactic,
which can be used for good or evil, and it is up to the public to decide how it affects
them.
Works Cited
Moss, Michael. Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. New York: Random
House, 2013. Print.
Kathleen L. Keller, Laura G. Kuilema, Norman Lee, Joyce Yoon, Brittany Mascaro,
Anne-Laure Combes, Bryan Deutsch, Kathryn Sorte, Jason C.G. Halford, The
impact of food branding on children's eating behavior and obesity,
Physiology & Behavior, Volume 106, Issue 3, 6 June 2012, Pages 379-386,
ISSN 0031-9384, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2012.03.011.
(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938412001163)
Writer’s Memo
I spent about 12 to 14 hours working on this essay. I did not receive peer feedback
on my essay, but I did benefit from the model essays on blackboard. The model
essays helped me in my introduction and in incorporating sources. To improve my
essay I annotated my source a second time on a clean print out of the article to
compare my observations and separate strong arguments from weaker ones. The
global aspect I am most confident about in this essay is my analysis of the texts
because I sufficient support from the text to show the significant link between food
branding directed towards children and childhood obesity. I am also confident that I
pinpointed and compared the audiences that each source targets. The global aspect I
am least confident about is not being explicit enough in describing the purpose of
this rhetorical analysis. Locally, I believe my strength was in correctly using the
vocabulary associated with food branding as means to support the claim that
marketing strategies target children and affects them in a negative way. The global
aspect I am most concerned about is being sure that every quote I used was
sandwiched properly. I would like to receive feedback on how well I used evidence
to show the rhetorical devices used in both sources. I believe I have earned an A in
this paper because it is thorough and I had a concrete understanding of both sources
that is reflected in the summaries and in addressing their purpose, audience, and
evidence.