Food Crime Friday: Oscar Mayer Carving Board Meats

Food companies are becoming more aware of the health conscious consumer’s desire for less processed foods. To reach this market, companies could start stripping down the number of ingredients and using less processing to create their products.  But, that would be too easy.  Instead, some companies are actually doing more processing – to make their products appear less processed.

Case in point: Oscar Mayer’s Carving Board Meats.


These meats have ragged cuts, and darkened edges to make the meat look like it was just carved from a roast.  Their advertising would even make you think it is equivalent to what you would get from a Thanksgiving dinner.

But what they don’t advertise is what you’ll find right in the ingredients list.

Carving ingredients

Those darkened edges are just created with caramel food coloring.  Sodium nitrites (linked to cancer in some studies) are used to preserve the meat.  And the sodium content is far higher than anything one would get from a roast cooked in their own kitchen.  Major health organizations recommend that we consume no more than 1500-2300 mg of sodium daily (depending on your age and health.)  Carving Board meats contain anywhere from 540-630 mg of sodium per serving. This means that one sandwich (if you follow the recommended serving size) would eat up more than 1/4 of your daily needs – and that’s not including any condiments or other toppings.  Yikes.

Don’t fall for this one, folks.  This product line is nothing more than regular, overly-salted, heavily processed Oscar Meyer deli meat with a cosmetic face lift.

A Lesson in Farmwashing from the Golden Arches


farm·wash·ing (noun): A marketing technique used by some industrial food producers in which idyllic images of farming are deployed to create misleading messages about how their products are made.

Some call it farmwashing, others just call it BS, either way, McDonald’s recent approach to improve their image is cheapening the entire concept of farm to fork.

First came the television commercials.

In 2012, McDonalds released three commercials highlighting American farmers who are producing the raw ingredients (beef, lettuce and potatoes) for their menu.  Clearly trying to cash-in on increasing consumer awareness of the benefits of eating locally and naturally, the commercials undermine and offend educated consumers, activists, and most of all, the farmers.  The same farmers who are trying desperately to stay in business because of the dysfunctional corporate farm infrastructure that McDonald’s has helped create.

I don’t think McDonald’s is outright lying with these commercials.  They are merely highlighting the kinder, prettier parts of the story and ignoring the rest of the steps it takes to get McDonald’s food into their paper bags.  For instance, there is a good chance that after this rancher’s cattle reach a certain size, they are sent off to a Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) that looks more like this:


Or how about the story of the McDonald’s potato farmer?

McDonald’s conveniently leaves out the part where they add beef flavor and deep fry those potatoes in a combination of GMO laden and trans-fatty oils.  Where is that part of the “farm-to-table” story?

Trying to position McDonald’s as an advocate of local farming seems laughable, and I would think that most consumers aren’t buying it.

But, just in case, McDonald’s has also created commercials for one of our most vulnerable, and easily manipulated populations: children.

With an iconic clown like Ronald McDonald, it is no secret that McDonald’s has a long standing tradition of peddling their products to children.  Focusing on apples and milk, arguably two of the most unpopular products sold at McDonald’s, and convincing kids that McDonald’s is the place to go for a nutritious meal is downright shameful.

And, did you catch this scene?


Where can you find carrots, a chicken leg, and bread sliced from a loaf on McDonald’s menu? That’s right. You can’t.  For adults, I would call this deceptive.  For children, it’s just dishonest.

As if all of this wasn’t enough, now McDonald’s is reaching out to Registered Dietitians to try and continue to solicit the idea that they sell “quality, fresh” products right from the farm.


In this flyer, the company invites dietitians to a ‘field-to-restaurant’ tour which according to the accompanying email only includes one farm stop: a lettuce farm.  Other than that, dietitians and other guests will only have access to a panel of dairy, beef, and produce suppliers to answer their questions.  Could you imagine if McDonald’s actually gave folks access to a CAFO?  Or why not give consumers a lesson in the process of making a Chicken McNugget?  Farm-to-restaurant? More like, farm-to-factory-to-restaurant.

McDonald’s is undermining a legitimate and necessary revolution, where we focus less on speed and convenience,  and more on local sourcing, health, seasonality, and sustainability.   If the company was really interested in the movement, they would take the millions spent on this farmwashing campaign and use it to start making real changes in the way their food is produced. I’m not lovin’ it, McDonald’s.

Why are tax dollars buying you junk food?


As our country continues to face an obesity crisis, it is ridiculous to think that the government would be spending even one dollar to subsidize junk food.  According to a report just released by the US Public Interest Research Group, that number actually looks more like $19 billion.


In the report, Apples to Twinkies 2013, PIRG unveils some seriously troubling issues with our current subsidy model. Here are a few of the key findings:

  • Since 1995, the government has spent 19.2 billion on corn and soy-derived junk food ingredients including corn sweeteners, hydrogenated oils, and corn starch.
  • Over that same time period, only $689 million has been allotted for apple subsidies, which is the ONLY fruit or vegetable to receive a substantial government subsidy.
  • If taxpayers were to receive an annual federal subsidy directly, each person would receive $7.30 to spend on junk food. In other words, every year, your tax dollars pay for enough junk food additives to buy 20 Twinkies, as the recently re-released product contains 17 taxpayer subsidized ingredients including partially hydrogenated vegetable shortening, corn syrup, and high fructose corn syrup.
  • On the contrary, the few dollars spent on apples only amounts to 26 cents per taxpayer per year, which would buy less than half of one apple per taxpayer.
  • The system disproportionately benefits larger commodity crop producers, sending tax subsidies to large, already-profitable companies like Cargill and Monsanto.
  • 75 percent of the subsidies go to just 3.8 percent of farmers, with 62 percent of farms receiving no federal funds whatsoever.

Many of these subsidies are set to expire this year, but not surprisingly, lobbyists for junk food companies want Congress to keep them.  Just last week, the House passed a Farm Bill (H.R. 1947) that will continue the subsidies for the next five years, while an amendment to discontinue certain subsidies for agribusinesses with high incomes failed.

Estimates of obesity-related medical costs have reached $150 billion per year, thanks in-part to cheap and highly accessible processed junk food.   If accessibility and low prices could be offered for healthier foods like fruits and vegetables instead, wouldn’t that help to circumvent the health problems and costs that are associated with junk food diets?

Critics argue that lower prices may not be enough to persuade consumers to choose healthy foods over junk foods, but several studies have shown that this probably isn’t the case.  A systematic review published in Public Health Nutrition concluded that subsidizing healthier foods tends to be effective in modifying dietary behavior.   All but one study in the review showed that subsidies on healthier foods significantly increase the purchase and consumption of promoted products.

“Taxpayers cannot afford to finance empty-calorie products when they foster obesity-related illnesses and raise already high health care costs,” says PIRG’s report. Nor should they want to.  With all of the focus that goes to wasteful government spending, you would think there would be a collective agreement that there are far better uses for taxpayer dollars than subsidizing the ingredients of a Twinkie.