Big Soda and the Open Truth Now Campaign

Full disclosure: I drink soda every now and then, and I really like it! Sometimes I even sip on soda to calm an upset stomach. But knowing it is unhealthy, I try to limit my intake.

Recently, on my morning Bart commute, I have been seeing signs like this one, which reads, "Big Soda says open happiness. What's happy about diabetes?"

Image Source: https://www.facebook.com/opentruthnow

The Open Truth Now campaign, led by Youth Speaks Inc. and UC San Francisco's Center for Vulnerable Populations at San Francisco General Hospital, is riding on the heels of Berkeley's historic passage of a one-cent-per-ounce soda tax to keep the anti-soda train going.

The soda tax passed in Berkeley with a wide margin, despite millions spent by the beverage industry to prevent it, while a similar two-cent-per-ounce tax measure lost in San Francisco (with 55% of voters in favor, not enough for the 2/3 margin the measure required). While public health supporters of the measures pointed to evidence that even a small tax changes behavior (more than education typically does), many opponents felt the tax was an example of ineffective overreach by an overly controlling "nanny state."

The Open Truth campaign is now tackling the issue from a direction that many opponents to the law advocated - reaching not for our wallets but for our brains, by educating the public about critical media consumption and the health consequences of sugar intake.

Image source: http://www.opentruthnow.org

According to Dr. Dean Schillinger, "Americans' sugar consumption has tripled over the past 50 years. And sugary drinks are now the No. 1 source of calories in the American diet — and a major contributor to Type 2 diabetes. Just one 12-ounce soda has about nine teaspoons of sugar — more than the recommended daily maximum for adults and more than three times the daily maximum for kids. Just one to two sugary drinks a day increases risk for Type 2 diabetes by 26 percent."

The ads seen around San Francisco focus on youth and aim to expose the marketing practices that companies have used to target youth of color in particular. The posters allude to the serious increase in diabetes prevalence in recent years, pointing out that the happiness promised by advertisements has actually led to a scourge of illness in many communities.

In many ways, the message of these ads reminds me of the most effective anti-tobacco ads of several years ago, which I wrote about in an earlier post:

You can follow the Open Truth Now campaign on Facebook here:
https://www.facebook.com/opentruthnow

What do you think? Is education, taxation, or both the best way to limit unhealthy consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages? Will the Open Truth Now campaign make a difference?

Anti-Smoking Advertisements

A few days ago, I posted about a handful of recent smoking policies that have come up in discussions with friends and family, in new campus rules, and in laws around town. As promised, today I want to talk about some interesting anti-smoking advertisements.

In my "theories of health and social behavior" class last semester, we talked about various advertising campaigns and what has made them successful (or not). Interestingly enough, studies show that some anti-smoking (and anti-drug, anti-drinking, etc.) campaigns actually increase propensities for engaging in those activities, while others effectively work to reduce them.

For example, after a major industry lawsuit in 1998/1999, some cigarette companies agreed to run anti-teen smoking advertising campaigns. The messaging in these ads may have conveyed with words that smoking was bad for you on the one hand, but the way that was done was often ineffective or even subversively promotional of smoking. Whether this was intentional or simply misguided, I cannot say, but it is definitely interesting. For example, by showing a single brave student resisting the peer pressure of everyone else smoking, the real messages interpreted by teens may have been, "You're the only one who doesn't smoke," and, "Your parents are trying to tell you what to do." Or by directly mentioning companies' brand names as the funders of the messages, the companies may have actually built more positive brand association. Especially for a target audience like teenagers, perceptions about how many other people are doing an activity, how cool/desirable those other people are, how trustworthy an industry is, and whether the teen is being "told what to do" by an adult (as compared to being given greater independence), can actively affect decisions to start or continue a behavior. This is an important reminder as a public health professional that we need to be careful with our interventions and take as much precaution as possible to prevent unintended harm. Here is an example of an ad that was evaluated to have actually produced an increase in intention to smoke among teens:

A totally different type of advertisement that we studied, which was evaluated to be more effective, involved off-beat messaging that cast the tobacco industry in a negative light. This was without ever directly telling people what to do or even mentioning the negative consequences of smoking. Check out this innovative ad:

The reason I started thinking about this topic again so recently is that I saw a series of newer anti-smoking advertisements circulating online. For example, this one has gone viral and boasts the YouTube tagline, "perhaps one of the best anti-smoking ads ever created." I am still skeptical, but it is definitely interesting. Judge for yourself:

And then there is this super  hilarious new series about people who self identify as "social smokers," comparing them to social farters, social nibblers, and social ear wax pickers. To see all three videos, click here, and to check out the campaign's facebook page, click here. Below is one of the videos:

Click here for some other creative anti-smoking print advertisements. What do you think? Will these latest ads achieve their goals to decrease smoking? Are there any unintended messages here? What are your opinions on any of the policies mentioned in my last post, or the anti-smoking movement in general?