Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
What is clean eating?
Replies
-
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Do you? I'm not sure how removing those ingredients would help with the obesity crisis...2 -
I don't either. But I don't see how this has anything to do with "taking away the very real problem of people overeating".WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Do you? I'm not sure how removing those ingredients would help with the obesity crisis...
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
I don't either. But I don't see how this has anything to do with "taking away the very real problem of people overeating".WinoGelato wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Do you? I'm not sure how removing those ingredients would help with the obesity crisis...
Probably because this marketing ploy will perpetuate the mentality of "I can eat whatever I want as long as I eat 'clean' because it is healthier". It doesn't address the fact that what causes weight gain is eating in a calorie surplus, and that can be done whether you buy into the Panera Clean campaign or continue to eat foods with those ingredients in them.3 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
1 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
It's a marketing ploy. That a certain segment of people think that "clean eating" is a solution to the obesity crisis or a way to lose weight probably is one (not the only) reason they think it will work as a marketing ploy.
Edit: I really should read to the end before responding -- what the people before me said!2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Spotted_Cow wrote: »From what I've read, clean eating is this:
I could be mistaken though.
I love your user name. I'm heading to Madison next week and can't wait to bring a case back home with me!0 -
This content has been removed.
-
I think its no coincidence that most of the "clean eating" advocacy embraces "no corporations" mentality. This is the origin of the aura surrounding "Clean eating" that it is a religion. This is not quite correct; it is a sociopolitical stance shaped by critical theory (Marxism).0
-
I highly doubt people who "eat clean" have even heard of Marx let alone are familiar with his work. Marxism is complicated and difficult, I don't get how it's become a catch all term for anything vaguely anti corporate.1
-
Sorry that came across more snarky than I intended.1
-
ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
I agree. I think freaking out about these ingredients is silly. But I think using their absence as a selling point for your food while continuing to profit from selling them in drinks is . . . distasteful.3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
It irritates me enough that although I have the Panera app and got a coupon for a daily free bagel last month, I didn't go and get even one. Normally I would have. I love bagels, and the best thing is that you can freeze them and they last forever. Given I don't eat bagels often, I could have picked up a year's supply.0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.1 -
My thoughts exactly.Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
0 -
Clean eating is brushing BEFORE meals. So obvious.
Anything else about it would fall into the "lets see how we can make money off this idea of 'clean eating'" category.
Sometimes I am a dirty eater.
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
That's what Panera wants consumers to think, at least. I don't eat out a whole lot, and when I do I tend to gravitate toward local or regional chains. But I don't think that they really try to get away with the "cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with" or "ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives." For example, one place I go uses fresh (not frozen) ground beef and you can really taste it in the burger.
I'm not saying that some places don't use cheap fillers and lots of preservatives (which, eaten in moderation, aren't inherently bad anyway), but that Panera is jumping on this marketing campaign of "clean eating" to seem to set themselves above other places0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
That's what Panera wants consumers to think, at least. I don't eat out a whole lot, and when I do I tend to gravitate toward local or regional chains. But I don't think that they really try to get away with the "cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with" or "ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives." For example, one place I go uses fresh (not frozen) ground beef and you can really taste it in the burger.
I'm not saying that some places don't use cheap fillers and lots of preservatives (which, eaten in moderation, aren't inherently bad anyway), but that Panera is jumping on this marketing campaign of "clean eating" to seem to set themselves above other places
I was just generalizing national corporate franchises; there are certainly exceptions. Corporations meticulously measure food costs and measure each site against other sites, so any time they can cut a corner by using cheaper ingredients and/or add preservatives to squeeze more shelf life out of food, that is the priority, because reducing food costs is recognized as an efficient business practice to be applauded (with bonuses for the managers who make the biggest profits).
It isn't so much that occasionally eating low quality food is necessarily going to destroy my health, it is more about rejecting the concept that I have to settle for eating a bunch of industrially created additives and/or processes that solely serve to make a company bigger profits, without any associated benefit for me.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
There are a variety of chain quick serve places around me that seem to care as much about quality (and have plenty of decent offerings). Pret a Manger and Hannah's Bretzel are a couple of them, maybe Potbelly's or Protein Bar (although Protein Bar could well use the "clean" word in its marketing, wouldn't shock me), I don't see much of a difference between Corner Bakery or Cafe Baci and Panera even though I don't go to any of those three very often. There are others, these just happen to be close to my office.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »I highly doubt people who "eat clean" have even heard of Marx let alone are familiar with his work. Marxism is complicated and difficult, I don't get how it's become a catch all term for anything vaguely anti corporate.
You don't actually have to read Marx or understand communist theory at all to buy into the maxims which have been grossly popularized, particularly over the last decade. Fifteen years ago no one had heard of microaggressions either, and I'd bet money that most college students who talk about them today are clueless that they come out of Marxist theory; yet on college campuses and increasingly in the wider population the framework of thought that is used to discuss issues within critical theory are used colloquially.
Anti-corporation thinking, whereupon all corporations are villainous entities seeking to harm people, is Marxist, whether or not the person using that argument knows anything about the philosophical underpinnings.2 -
paulgads82 wrote: »I highly doubt people who "eat clean" have even heard of Marx let alone are familiar with his work. Marxism is complicated and difficult, I don't get how it's become a catch all term for anything vaguely anti corporate.
You don't actually have to read Marx or understand communist theory at all to buy into the maxims which have been grossly popularized, particularly over the last decade. Fifteen years ago no one had heard of microaggressions either, and I'd bet money that most college students who talk about them today are clueless that they come out of Marxist theory; yet on college campuses and increasingly in the wider population the framework of thought that is used to discuss issues within critical theory are used colloquially.
Anti-corporation thinking, whereupon all corporations are villainous entities seeking to harm people, is Marxist, whether or not the person using that argument knows anything about the philosophical underpinnings.
Yeah, you're probably right. I'm just a sociology geek. Micro aggressions weren't even covered when I was finishing my studies in 2005.1 -
I think Need2Exercise argues that "clean eating" came out of the 60s counterculture, which might support the point. And like lots of stuff it is popularized and most people do it because it's trendy, not because they really have an ideological commitment.
I don't actually have a position on this yet, just a thought.1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
Panera thanks you for your contributions.
In all seriousness, I think it's bizarre that anyone believes that any restaurant's goal is to buy food "stuffed with preservatives" as though the buyer for the company is sitting in a dark office Mr. Burns style.
Is it perhaps a byproduct of trying to make their product cheaper? Sure. Is it the goal? I'm highly skeptical.0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
In all seriousness, I think it's bizarre that anyone believes that any restaurant's goal is to buy food "stuffed with preservatives" as though the buyer for the company is sitting in a dark office Mr. Burns style.
6 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I think Need2Exercise argues that "clean eating" came out of the 60s counterculture, which might support the point. And like lots of stuff it is popularized and most people do it because it's trendy, not because they really have an ideological commitment.
I don't actually have a position on this yet, just a thought.
Yes, this is true. I first heard of it as a child in the 60's and I associate the term with communes and flower children and hippies. The grow your own live off the grid type people.
I couldn't swear the term wasn't around before then because I wasn't around before then. But it seemed like a new thing. Something the older generation scoffed at. Maybe all you scoffers are just too old.
0 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
Panera thanks you for your contributions.
In all seriousness, I think it's bizarre that anyone believes that any restaurant's goal is to buy food "stuffed with preservatives" as though the buyer for the company is sitting in a dark office Mr. Burns style.
Is it perhaps a byproduct of trying to make their product cheaper? Sure. Is it the goal? I'm highly skeptical.
I'm not a regular at Panera and I honestly don't know a lot about their corporate practices.
Sure, fast food corporations set up multi-million dollar R&D laboratories that churn out countless additives and preservatives solely to make the customer happy and healthy, without regard to profitability
0 -
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I think Need2Exercise argues that "clean eating" came out of the 60s counterculture, which might support the point. And like lots of stuff it is popularized and most people do it because it's trendy, not because they really have an ideological commitment.
I don't actually have a position on this yet, just a thought.
Yes, this is true. I first heard of it as a child in the 60's and I associate the term with communes and flower children and hippies. The grow your own live off the grid type people.
I couldn't swear the term wasn't around before then because I wasn't around before then. But it seemed like a new thing. Something the older generation scoffed at. Maybe all you scoffers are just too old.
It's more likely because I grew up in the '80s when we idolized the '50s and mocked all things hippy. Just call me Alex P. Keaton. ;-)1 -
Bry_Lander wrote: »Bry_Lander wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Are you saying that you think the reason they did this has anything to do with the obesity crisis?
It takes away from the very real problem of people overeating in favor of a "let's all feel good because we can pronounce everything we're eating" approach.WinoGelato wrote: »ReaderGirl3 wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »Honestly, I didn't even think most of those ingredients were necessarily in their drinks and not food. I didn't see their list as having anything to do with artificial sweeteners at all, as most of those ingredients are unrelated to that.
I was just saying that it made no sense to me for them to remove those items from food but not drinks.
While I have no issues with artificial sweeteners, I do agree with you that if they're going to remove it from one part of their menu, and make a big publicity campaign out of it, then they should remove it from everything they serve. Otherwise it seems a bit hypocritical?
Since they don't make many of the drinks they serve, they can't remove it from the drinks. If they decide not to serve drinks containing these things, that gets rid of most mainstream soda options (artificial colors). It could be done.
Something tells me it won't ever happen for the items they don't make. Which is fine by me. I find the whole campaign ridiculous.
I find it ridiculous too and it actually makes me want to NOT eat at Panera because I feel like they are capitalizing on a useless marketing ploy... This will be difficult since there is one on pretty much every corner here as this is where they started...
Not directly, no. It's quite obviously a marketing ploy designed to capitalize on the clean eating fad. However, the way it's marketed, it's as if they're saying by removing the ingredients on their "no-no list" that people are somehow eating healthier, and that's just not the case. If they had emphasized lower calorie items being added or expanded nutritional information displayed in-store, I could get behind that. The way it stands, they're equating fresh/whole foods with healthy, and that's a "no-no" in my book.
http://fortune.com/2015/08/18/panera-promises-a-clean-pumpkin-spice-latte-for-this-fall/
"Panera’s head chef, Dan Kish, told Fortune the beverage changes were all part of an evolution at the fast casual chain, as the company moves to offer diners healthier options and be transparent about the ingredients it uses."
https://www.panerabread.com/en-us/articles/what-does-eating-clean-mean.html
"That, he says, is what drives the effort; as much as the move toward clean food is about health, it’s also about taste. [...] It all comes down to freshness and flavor, says John—but in the end everything comes down to the customer. “We need to do this work so that our customers can feel great about what we represent, what we deliver, who we are.” He jokes, “We read labels so you don’t have to.”"
I think it is a marketing campaign that goes beyond the “clean eating” appeal, and is focusing on the general perception of most fast food and chain sit down restaurant chains by people who actually take the time to investigate their practices: none of these restaurants really care about the food quality they serve, they buy the cheapest ingredients that they can possibly get away with, they ensure that their food is stuffed with plenty of preservatives so that they can maximize its shelf life and ensure that it will hold up nicely under a heat lamp for long a duration, they infuse their food with enough sugar and sodium so that there is maximum taste appeal, and serve it in huge portions so that there is a perception of good value for the money. I don’t think one has to be a self-declared “clean eater” to be concerned about the shady ingredients and processing practices associated with their food.
Panera thanks you for your contributions.
In all seriousness, I think it's bizarre that anyone believes that any restaurant's goal is to buy food "stuffed with preservatives" as though the buyer for the company is sitting in a dark office Mr. Burns style.
Is it perhaps a byproduct of trying to make their product cheaper? Sure. Is it the goal? I'm highly skeptical.
I'm not a regular at Panera and I honestly don't know a lot about their corporate practices.
Sure, fast food corporations set up multi-million dollar R&D laboratories that churn out countless additives and preservatives solely to make the customer happy and healthy, without regard to profitability
A friend of mine dated a food scientist who worked in R&D for a while. He brought hone samples for us to taste test all the time. Was he trying to make the tastiest product he could within a cost margin? Sure. But not concerned with food quality (whatever that means) and shady? Not that I ever saw. Maybe he kept the evil cackling to work hours.5 -
I thought clean eating meant eating any type of soap, cleaning products, & shampoo
When I was wuz younger and more pretty I thought clean eating meant washing you food, sweeping your food, vacuuming your food.
And before that I thought clean eating meant just simply eating while you cleaned
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 428 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions