Archives

Uncategorized — 2 Comments
26
Sep 19

Impossible Burger, impossible to trust?

It’s no secret that consuming meat can lead to various health and environmental issues. Imagine the joy of people who aspire to make a change to improve their health and/or to fight global warming when they woke up this morning to CNN news (2019) reporting that starting this Thursday people in East Coast can find the Impossible Burger in most Wegmans. But is Impossible Burger possibly a healthier choice compared to traditional burger patties? Also, how did Impossible burger quickly become the new “IT” food?

In recent years, many environmentally conscious people decided to become vegetarian, or even vegan, to help fight global warming. Bobby Magill (2016) states in climatecentral.org that by heavy reducing consumption of read meat, primarily lamb and beef, by 2050 the per capita food and land use-related greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced by 15% to 35%. Additionally, the per capita emission could be reduced by half if people decide to become vegetarian (Magill, 2016). More importantly, Harrison Wine (2012) reports in National Institutes of Health that following their longitude study “those who consumed the highest levels of both unprocessed and processed red meat had the highest risk of all-cause of mortality, cancer mortality and cardiovascular disease mortality.” Thus, it’s not a surprise that when Impossible Food was first launched three years ago at Momofuku Nishi, it immediately became the newest “IT” food (Yeung, CNN.com, 2019). People are excited to finally have a healthier choice to satisfy their meat cravings. But, again, is Impossible Burger really healthier?

First, let’s look at the nutrition facts of Impossible Burger and compare it with traditional burgers. According to goodhousekeeping.com and womenshealthmag.com the ingredients in the impossible burger and traditional burger are as follows: 

Impossible burger  Beef Patty Nutrition Facts
Serving Size: 4 ounces Serving Size: 4 ounces
Calories: 240 Calories: 260
Total Fat: 14g (18% DV) Total Fat: 16g (25% DV)
Saturated Fat: 8g (40% DV) Saturated Fat: 6g (30% DV)
Trans Fat: 0g Trans Fat: 0g
Cholesterol: 0mg Cholesterol: 94mg (32% DV)
Sodium: 370mg (16% DV) Sodium: 89mg (4% DV)
Total Carbs: 9g Total Carbs: 0g
Dietary Fiber: 3g (11% DV) Dietary Fiber: 0g
Total Sugars: <1g Total Sugars: 0g
Protein: 19g Protein: 28g
Calcium: 15% DV Iron: 17% DV
Iron: 25% DV Potassium: 11% DV
Potassium: 15% DV
Thiamin: 2350% DV
Vitamin B12: 130% DV
Zinc: 50% DV

What jumped out at a quick glance is the sodium content. Impossible Burger contains 370mg, or 16% of recommended daily value, and 2 grams higher in saturated fat (Picard, 2019). Furthermore, it also contains much less protein which will result in consumers feeling less full and potentially increase their food intake (Picard, 2019). More importantly, Jaclyn London (2019), a nutrition director at Good Housekeeping Institute states that “Plant-based protein that’s used to create something new — and therefore highly processed — is susceptible to being loaded with sodium and saturated fat.” The bottom line is that, it’s better for people’s health if they would eat meat in moderation than switch to Impossible Burger entirely and eat it excessively (London, 2019, cited in good housekeeping.com) 

Why, though, is Impossible Burger perceived as a healthier choice so quickly? Schneider, Gruman, and Coutts (2012) suggest that messages can be used as a tool to encourage people to adopt healthier lifestyle habits (p.171). With a strong yet simple mission statement, Impossible Food (2019) is doing just that: Eat meat. Save Earth. The website impossiblefood.com (2019) proceeds with facts, claims, and information about how people save the earth when eating Impossible Burger. Schneider et al. (2012) explain this process as informational appeals, which is a process of providing people with facts and arguments about why it is important to engage in certain health behavior (p.171). The Impossible Food website organizes their facts and arguments in a fun, colorful, and futuristic way even, evidently targeting to a younger more progressive audience. As Schneider et al. (2012) stress that in order for informational appeals to be effective, it has to be constructed in a way that the target audience “gets it” (p.171). With the brief shortage of the Impossible Burger and the hype and excitement around it, it shows that their target audience “gets it.” 

While having choices and saving the earth is a good thing, people should pause and check the nutrition facts on the Impossible Food, first. For example, does anyone know Heme, its main ingredient, is? Heme is a soy product, and while humans have been eating all sorts of soy products, there’s no known reports that human had have actually consumed soy leghemoglobin (Heme) before (Clinton, The New Food Economy, 2017). Furthermore, heme is a protein produced by genetically modified yeast cells, so it’s rather new and the health and allergy risk is not yet known as of today due to a lack of empirical researches (Clinton, The New Food Economy, 2017). So, while Impossible Food has great potential for carnivores to save the earth, it still needs a lot of empirical researche to back up its data and claims. Thus, East Coast people don’t go out and buy all Impossible Burger just yet. Perhaps starts with the ancient method of trying everything in moderation, first.

 

 

 

 

References:

Clinton, P. (2018, July 27). The Impossible Burger is likely safe. So why is everyone scared of heme? Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://newfoodeconomy.org/plant-blood-soy-leghemoglobin-impossible-burger/.

Magill, B. (2016, April 20). Studies Show Link Between Red Meat and Climate Change. Retrieved from https://www.climatecentral.org/news/studies-link-red-meat-and-climate-change-20264

Mission Statement . (0AD). Retrieved from https://impossiblefoods.com/mission/

Wallace, H. A. Z. E. L. (2018, October 24). Sink Your Teeth Into This: The Impossible Burger Isn’t As Nutritious as You’d Think. Retrieved from https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/food/healthy-eating/a708824/is-the-impossible-burger-healthy/

Wein, H. (2012, March 22). Risk in Red Meat? Retrieved from https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/risk-red-meat

Picard, C. (2019, April 30). I Ate an Actual Impossible Burger – Here’s What It Really Tastes Like. Retrieved from https://www.goodhousekeeping.com/health/diet-nutrition/a27286383/impossible-burger/

Schneider, F.W., Gruman J.A.,  & Coutts, L.M. (2012). Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Yeung, J. (2019, September 26). The Impossible Burger has arrived in East Coast grocery stores. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/us/impossible-burger-east-coast-intl-hnk-scli/index.html?utm_medium=social&utm_content=2019-09-26T11:30:07&utm_term=link&utm_source=fbCNN&fbclid=IwAR0yLA91G620G1htwQ306N4MfYsUFrbUlvyMY3USmc8gRhqPTRe6h_ylubY

create an entry — No Comments
07
Oct 16

Changing Health Behavior: Smoking

One thing I’d really like to do this year is give up smoking. Now, how can I use Applied Social Psychology to help me in this resolution?

One way is definitely by reading up on theories of changing health behavior and applying them to my external and internal situation. Therefore, I’ll use this blog post to discuss the health belief model, the theory of planned behavior, and the stages of change model, in the context of my resolution of giving up smoking.

First, the health belief model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1974). What are my beliefs related to the various components of the health belief model? Well, first of all, I do have an interest in staying fit and healthy, and I’d like to avoid getting cancer if possible. These are my general health values, the first component of the health belief model.

Secondly, I believe that smoking is a strong causative factor of cancer. As a smoker, I am more susceptible to cancer—therefore my perceived susceptibility to illness is high. Although I’d like to believe I’ll be one of those smokers who live to 100, I know that it is highly unlikely. I also know that cancer is deadly, and painful, and highly detrimental all around. Therefore, I perceive the severity of the illness to be quite high as well. I also think that giving up on smoking will reduce my chances of cancer—as yet, no one in my family has gotten cancer (touch wood), but no one in my family smokes either. If I give up smoking, I have a high expectation that I will be able to avoid cancer.

Now, where I do run into problems is my level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1977a). I do not think I have what it takes to give up smoking. I have tried before, and have failed miserably. I don’t think I can give up smoking. I use cigarettes to regulate my anxiety and stress, and without cigarettes, I really don’t think I’ll be able to manage those issues, no matter how much therapy I pay for. This is a considerable barrier to my giving up smoking, even though the above-outlined benefits are many. My cue to action, which is my parents’ and peers’ heavy encouragement to stop smoking, is just not strong enough to overcome this one big barrier that looms in the way of my giving up smoking.

Next, let’s use the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991) to examine my wish to stop smoking. According to this model, there are three factors that affect my planned behavior: attitude towards behavior, subjective norms, and perceived control. My attitude toward smoking is pretty clear—it’s harmful, and I need to stop. Thus, I have a positive attitude towards stopping smoking. Subjective norms regarding smoking are a little complex—while my parents and some of my peers disapprove of my smoking, my best friend and I typically smoke together on a daily basis. It’s our bonding time, and I would be loath to give that up. My perceived control over my behavior, which is modulated by my perceived self-efficacy, is, to be honest, quite low. I’m pretty thoroughly addicted to smoking, and experience withdrawal symptoms, both psychological and physiological when I don’t smoke.

According to the theory of planned behavior, my chances of giving up smoking, though I have the wish to do so, are relatively low, given my low perceived control over my behavior. Norman, Corner, and Bell (1999) have found that smoking cessation is only likely when there is perceived control over the behavior—the odds are against me.

Finally, let’s look at the stages of change model (Prochaska & DiClemente, 1983, 1986). I used to be in the precontemplation stage of this model, because I had no intention of giving up smoking. But lately, with pressure from my family and healthcare providers, I’ve been considering giving it up more and more. So now, I am in the contemplation stage of the model. I do intend to make a change in my behavior over the next six months—hopefully I don’t end up staying in this stage for years, like many other smokers. I hope to transition to the preparation stage of this model, wherein I cut down on my smoking in preparation of stopping altogether. It may be that when I stop altogether (the action phase) I will experience relapse and go back to the contemplation phase, but I would like to make it to the maintenance stage, where I’ve gone six months without smoking.

Will I make it? We’ll just have to see!

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 191–215.

Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.

Norman, P., Conner, M., & Bell, R. (1999). The theory of planned behavior and smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 18, 89–94.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 390–395.

Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In W. R. Miller & N. Heather (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change (pp. 3–27). New York: Plenum Press.

Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2, 328–335.

 

 

 

create an entry — 6 Comments
11
Feb 15

Fear appeal backfire?

February 1, 2015 marked the date of the annual Super Bowl which is hallmarked by the best television commercials of the year.  The average cost for a 60-second spot was $8 million this year (Siltanen, 2014).  What companies chose to do with their time ranged from horses helping a lost puppy get home to a baby eating chips on a plane.  However, what one company did has been widely discussed on national news networks and social media sites.  Nationwide Insurance’s “Make Safe Happen” ad is being debated across the country for its attempt at what Lafreniere and Cramer (2012) call “fear appeal” (p.171).  The focus of this post will be the concept of fear appeal and its benefits and costs in attempting to change health-related behavior in the context of the Nationwide Super Bowl Ad, “Make Safe Happen.”

Persuasion is a type of social influence whereby a message, delivered via a medium such as television, newspaper ads, social media campaigns, etc. attempts to change beliefs or attitudes by appealing to a target audience (Lafreniere & Cramer, 2012).   In health psychology, persuasion is used to elicit behavior changes that foster a healthy and safe lifestyle (Lafreniere & Cramer).  Two types of persuasive appeals were identified by Lafreniere and Cramer: informational and fear.  The focus of this post will be fear appeals, which according to Lafreniere and Cramer, serve to draw attention to a particular subject matter by activating fears.  In the case of the Nationwide commercial (2015), an attempt was made to attract attention to the issue of preventable childhood injuries and deaths, and the safety concerns in the lives of children by drawing on fears of childhood death.

According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC, 2012), 1 in every 5 child deaths is the result of an injury.  The image below depicts the startling statistics of child injuries and deaths in the United States including a comparison to other industrialized nations (CDC).  From these statistics, it is apparent that Nationwide was attempting to attract attention to a legitimate health and safety problem. Yet, the commercial was not well-received by all viewers as evidenced by responses of condemnation (Eliason, 2015) and applause (Krugman & Cumpsty-Fowler, 2015) on social media and in the news.  These mixed results are not uncommon to fear appeal attempts (Lafreniere & Cramer, 2012).   Recent evidence from two meta-analyses revealed different results when assimilating evidence with one analysis reporting such inconsistent results the authors were unable to draw a definitive conclusion (Peters, et al., 2013) and the other suggesting alternatives to fear appeal in the face of insufficient evidence of efficacy  (Ruiter, et al., 2014).  These results seem contrary to those from Devos-Comby and Salovey as reported by Lafreniere and Cramer which concluded that the greater the fear response, the more likely the intention to change behavior will occur.  Large scale documentation linking fear appeal to actual behavior change is unclear (Lafreniere & Cramer; Ruiter, et al.; Peters, et al.).childinjury_580px

Lafreniere & Cramer (2012) caution that fear appeal can be risky as it may elicit a response of sadness from some.  Evidence of the sadness induced by the Nationwide commercial is all over the internet, including the LinkedIn blog post by Frank Eliason (2015), “Nationwide is More than a Downer” where Eliason discusses how the commercial provoked painful memories of his own experience with childhood death.  When negative emotions are activated by fear appeal the intended message can be blurred and not received as intended.

Lafreniere and Cramer (2012) suggest methods for ensuring optimal message delivery including: clearly conveying the link between unhealthy or unsafe behaviors and poor outcomes and healthy, safe behaviors with good outcomes, emphasizing the reality of the situation and that poor outcomes could happen to anyone, inclusion of a specific recommendation for behavior improvement to avoid negative consequences, emphasizing ease of making a behavioral change to reach intended goals and timing of the message. Nationwide (2015) adhered to some of these recommendations like making the message that unsafe practices could lead to child death very clear and emphasizing the truth of the situation.  However, other suggestions could have helped Nationwide obtain their goal of childhood health and safety awareness.  For instance, it is questionable whether the Super Bowl was the appropriate venue for such a serious ad.  With that being said, Nationwide knew it would have the attention of a huge audience and took advantage of the ability to reach the multitudes which leaves the topic up for debate.  According to Lafreniere and Cramer, when consequences seem more immediate fear appeals are more likely to elicit change.  However, when is the best time to raise awareness of preventable childhood death?  It would seem that with the statistics as they are, the sooner the better.  Additionally, Nationwide fell short on explicitly sharing ways to prevent childhood accidents aside from linking to their website on childhood health and safety.

Fear appeal is something that clearly has pitfalls and benefits when attempting to change behavior.  Caution is essential when attempting to use fear appeal as a tactic to improve health and safety. Whether the country loved the Nationwide commercial (2015) or thought it was tasteless, one thing is certain, it got America talking about a huge problem impacting those nearest and dearest to us, our children.  Fear appeal backfire? Maybe, maybe not.

-Windy Alonso

 

References:

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) (2012). Vital signs – Child injury. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/VitalSigns/childinjury/

Eliason, F. (2015). Nationwide is more than a downer. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nationwide-more-than-downer-frank-eliason?midToken=AQE2FWFUp4O03w&trk=eml-b2_content_ecosystem_digest-recommended_articles-172-null&fromEmail=fromEmail&ut=2BQ8XxKKDL3CE1

Krugman, S. & Cumpsty-Fowler, C. (2015). Nationwide: on kid’s side. Retrieved from http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-nationwide-commercial-20150210-story.html

Lafreniere, K. & Cramer, K. (2012). Applying social psychology to health, in Applied Social Psychology: Understanding and Addressing Social and Practical Problems (2nd ed.) Schneider, Gruman, & Coutts (Eds.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Nationwide Insurance (2015). Make safe happen.  Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKUy-tfrIHY

Peters, G., Ruiter, R. & Yok, G. (2012). Threatening communication: a critical re-analysis and a revised meta-analytic test of fear appeal theory. Health Psychology Review. 7(Suppl1): S8-S31.

Ruiter, R., Kessels, L., Peters, G. & Yok, G. (2014). Sixty years of fear appeal research: Current state of the evidence. International Journal of Psychology. 49(2): 63-70.

Siltanen, R. (2014). Yes, a Super Bowl ad really is worth $4 million. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2014/01/29/yes-a-super-bowl-ad-really-is-worth-4-million/

Skip to toolbar