This is another post in the “Destroyer of Quackery” series. As a refresher, the intent of these is to take select news items, decipher them, and help you read between the lines so as to understand what’s really being said. I hate bullshit corporate quackery that preys upon the public’s lack of education in a certain area. Which means I hate all corporate quackery.
This is a long post, but I swear randomly, so it’s worth reading.
On Feb 19th, Krispy Kreme introduced a whole wheat donut that somehow is supposed to be acceptable for health-conscious consumers. I am not making this up. From the KK press release:
“The Krispy Kreme Whole Wheat Glazed doughnut delivers the delicious taste that our customers have come to expect from us,” said Stan Parker, Senior Vice President of Marketing for Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. “This sweet treat is an alternative for health conscious consumers with the benefits of 100% whole wheat and only 180 calories,” he added.
First rule — when a Sr. VP of Marketing of a garbage food company is quoted in a press release saying anything about “health,” your bullshit detector should go insane. 95% of the time when you see this, you can immediately scream “BULLSHIT” at the top of your lungs while throwing random objects out the nearest window and enjoy the warm, satisfying glow of being completely crazy and correct.
Second rule — when someone has to sell you on how healthy a processed food is, it isn’t. This rule compounds at a terrifying rate when the food in question is manufactured by a fast food company. This rule accelerates to the point of getting younger (little physics joke there for you) when the food is made by a fucking donut company.
Let’s look at this fine, new healthy whole wheat treat from Krispy Kreme in more detail.
This horribly-written and under-researched news story from MSNBC claims that KK donuts range between 200 and 350 calories each. That’s wrong — KK’s biggest calorie bomb is 380 calories, not 350. And there are two different products that weigh in at 380. The article goes on to indicate that the new KK whole wheat donut is only 180 calories. This is true. So what’s the problem?
The problem is that the average American will look at the 180, then look at the biggest number in the calorie range for traditional KK donuts. So they see 350 (using the numbers from the MSNBC hack job), and then 180. That’s a 49% reduction in calories. Not too shabby, right?
Wrong.
If you dig around on KK’s website, you can eventually stumble across a nutritional information page. It isn’t easy to find. Once you click on it, you’re rewarded with a small, cramped PDF that opens in a window far too small to show its contents, and the maximize button is disabled (at least on Windows XP). So you have to manually jigger the window size to show the contents. Oh, and you also have to mess with the zoom, because the default zoom percentage is something like 63%.
Once you go through all of that, you’ll see that KK’s 380 calorie donut is the Caramel Kreme Crunch (why not “Krunch,” I wonder?) and the Apple Fritter. Both of these are much larger in terms of serving size than the “regular” KK glazed donut — 98g and 101g versus 52g for the normal, traditional KK donut.
Here’s the key: you have to look at the normal KK donut to do an accurate comparison to the new whole wheat one. So let’s do that and see exactly how much you’re saving by eating a whole wheat Krispy Kreme instead of their traditional donut.
CALORIES: Traditional = 200; whole wheat = 180. You shave a measly 20 calories.
SERVING SIZE: Traditional = 52g; whole wheat = 48g. The whole wheat donut is physically smaller, and that’s where the bulk of the 20 calorie savings comes from.
CALORIES FROM FAT: Traditional = 100; whole wheat = 100. Wow. I can see the healthy alternativeness already.
TOTAL FAT: Traditional = 12g; whole wheat = 11g. This doesn’t make any sense. There are 9 calories per gram of fat, which means the “calories from fat” (above) cannot possibly be the same between the two donuts given that the grams of fat aren’t even. Or the “total fat” is wrong. One or the other. Regardless, let’s call it even despite the fact that KK’s nutritional information shows a lack of basic nutritional understanding.
CHOLESTEROL: Traditional = 3mg; whole wheat = 3mg.
TRANS FAT: Traditional = 4g; whole wheat = 3.5g. Disgusting. There should be ZERO trans fats in a “healthy” product.
CARBOHYDRATES: Traditional = 22g; whole wheat = 19g. Whole wheat is marginally better, but the real question here is how the carbohydrates from sugar compares. Which leads me to…
SUGAR: Traditional = 10g; whole wheat = 10g. Hey, lookit that. Whole wheat offers nothing when it comes to the primary offender when you’re talking about carbs. Huh.
FIBER: Traditional = <1g; whole wheat 6g. This is the only area in which the whole wheat donut is tangibly better than the traditional. Whoopee.
So, in a nutshell, KK’s new whole wheat, healthy-alternative donut is made mainly out of complete bullshit and being fed as an outright lie to people struggling to eat better. I won’t get on my soapbox about how healthy eaters shouldn’t even touch Krispy Kreme products with somebody else’s severed hand, but when such a blatant lie about health is foisted upon people who don’t know better, it really pisses me off.
Krispy Kreme’s stock peaked at $48.90 per share in 2003. It’s now just over $10.
This donut isn’t the answer. They’re trying to diversify away from the shit-as-food reputation they have now, but this new product isn’t going to help them — at least if I have anything to say about it.
39 responses so far ↓
paddy // February 28, 2007 at 5:51 pm
I love this stuff…corporate liars exposed! Numbers and “statistics” can be massaged in any number of ways to make whatever point is required.
I am always enthralled by those “Now only 3% fat!” notices, vaguely suggesting that the product has reduced its fat by 97% when in fact it has gone down from 3.2% to 3%. And probably only by increasing the water content.
It’s a simple conclusion - shit food is shit food, and one or two percent of anything here or there just isn’t going to make any difference.
Krispy Kreme dips donuts in Lies? | Misguided Thoughts // February 28, 2007 at 6:55 pm
[...] Here’s a post about the new Krispy Kreme ‘healthy’ donut they’re marketing. [...]
SoSad // February 28, 2007 at 8:06 pm
This stuff makes me so sad, people are actually stupid enough to buy into it. Hey this is whole wheat dipped in sugar it must be good for you? I hope you get a free pack of smokes (lights or ultra lights to be sure)with every dozen. Maybe throw in a low fat carmel Latte.
Jeff Ventura // February 28, 2007 at 11:16 pm
What’s sad is that this is only one example of companies treating people like vessels through which their products can pass — advertised with lies and half-truths — in exchange for money, regardless of what the end result is to the people who ultimately consume them.
At the end of the day, it’s up to each and every one of us to understand what we’re eating. At the same time, companies who lie so blatantly need to be exposed. The more people know about this, the better.
Steve P // February 28, 2007 at 11:23 pm
I keep waiting for the new advertising packaging for butter (etc.) claiming its health value because it’s “100% sugar free” and contains “all natural ingredients.” !
Or a bag of sugar -
“contains no added fats, artificial colors or sweeteners”
I shoulda gone into advertising!
Jeff Ventura // February 28, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Steve: every food company exploits the labeling laws to the finest loopholes possible. Food and nutrition are passions second only to technology for me, and seeing things like this shoved into the public’s face drives me crazy.
Somewhere out there tomorrow morning, people will go and buy whole wheat Krispy Kremes and think they’re doing a good thing and moving closer to their health/fitness goals. That’s just sad.
joyfarm6 // March 1, 2007 at 2:41 am
Krispy Kreme is really hurting from the low carb diet craze and they have never recovered the sales they have lost in the last 3-4 years. They are not the most ethical company to begin with. As I remember they had problems reporting to the SEC.
The market will take care of them. I would hope people are not that dense that they cannot figure out this sleight of hand. Companies that do the right thing like Starbucks, by removing all foods with trans fats will most likely be the winners in the long run.
A donut once in a while won’t kill you, I hope, at least for my and my best friend sake (who is a cop).
raincoaster // March 1, 2007 at 3:41 am
Low carbs are over, thankfully, so we’re spared the “Zero Carb” ads for vodka for god’s sake, but “healthier choice” is the most abused expression in marketing.
Healthier, yes. Healthy? No.
BTW I was in a Vancouver Starbucks wiht my sister and there was a cop ahead of us. He ordered a nonfat latte and asked “are those bran muffins low fat?” The Barista said no, so he got an oat bar instead. My sister turned to me and said, “What the hell kind of cop is that?”
Heather’s Poor Excuse // March 1, 2007 at 3:51 am
[...] Krispy Kreme Introduces New Donut Made of Pure Lies No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> [...]
SID // March 1, 2007 at 9:01 am
hi , very interesting
iwanttofitin // March 1, 2007 at 10:53 am
The unhealthy part of a donut doesn’t come from the bread portion of a donut. It’s how they’re made and what’s on them. The sugar is coming from the glaze not the bread part. But they are correct in stating that it is healthier for you even if it is marginal.
Nimish Batra // March 1, 2007 at 10:57 am
Jeff:- Off topic but http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/02/28/exclusive-is-spotplex-a-better-digg/
February 2007 wrapup: It’s all Leopard-ey « Graceful Flavor // March 1, 2007 at 2:19 pm
[...] FAQ ← Krispy Kreme introduces new donut made of pure lies [...]
Donuts are for chumps // March 2, 2007 at 10:38 pm
The fiber boost alone is enough to warrant the switch. Anyone dumb enough to assume that eating a donut can be in any way “healthy” probably can’t be reasoned with anyway.
This is a good move, even if it isn’t the move you’d prefer (how exactly is it even possible to make a healthy donut?).
Jon // March 2, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Krispy Kreme hasn’t made any false claims. The thing IS a bit less bad for you. I don’t see what’s so horrifying about the way they’ve presented it. Spread the word about how unhealthy it is, but there’s nothing nefarious going on here. Sorry.
Jeff Ventura // March 2, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Jon: it’s deceptive. To walk a line of technicality so finely when people don’t understand exactly how similar this donut is to the regular one isn’t exactly full disclosure.
So, technically, you are correct — it is better for you in the most minuscule of ways. Do people understand exactly how minuscule? No.
I don’t agree with exploiting a loophole in the public’s education about nutrition science. Saying this donut is a healthy alternative is like a technology vendor calling its OS “secure” because it absolutely, positively cannot be infected with one certain kind of malware. The other 300K kinds? Oh, it’s completely vulnerable, but it’s protected against this one.
Is that secure? No. Is it technically more secure? Yes. Should it be able to be marketed that way to the public? No.
Jon // March 3, 2007 at 1:25 pm
I think the proper response here is to educate people about just how unhealthy doughnuts are–any doughnuts. But they are tasty, and I plan on trying one for the flavor rather than any health benefits.
Your analogy doesn’t really hold up. Krispy Kreme isn’t saying that these doughnuts are healthy–just that they’re better than the normal doughnuts. If people are so eager to fool themselves into believe that they can eat what they want with no consequences then that’s their problem. It’s sad, but I don’t see how Krispy Kreme is responsible. There’s nothing evil about providing people with things they like.
Mea Culpa // March 4, 2007 at 8:10 pm
How about a Twinkie?
“Twinkies contain actual flour, sugar, salt, baking soda, water and a trace of egg. But the rest of the 39 ingredients are not generally what you find in your pantry. A sampling:
THE FILLING
Shortening (in the form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oil and/or beef fat) is the main ingredient.
Polysorbate 60 is a gooey substance that helps replace cream and eggs at a fraction of the cost. It’s derived from corn, palm oil and petroleum.
Cellulose gum gives the crème filling a smooth, slippery feel.
Artificial vanillin is synthesized in petrochemical plants. The real thing comes from finicky tropical orchids that are pollinated by hand on the one day they bloom.
THE CAKE
Lecithin is an emulsifier made from soy. It’s also used in paint to keep pigments evenly dispersed.
Diacetyl mimics the taste of butter, since the real stuff would go rancid on a store shelf.
Cornstarch is a common thickener. But it’s more often used to make cardboard and packing peanuts.
Yellow No. 5, Red No. 40 give the cake the golden look of eggs.
Sorbic acid, the only actual preservative in Twinkies, comes from petroleum.
TWINKIE FACTS
Calories: 145 each
Shelf life: 25 days—not years, as urban legend would have it
History: In 1930, James Dewar found a way to use idle baking pans. He named the cakes after seeing an ad for “Twinkle-Toe” shoes. Shelf life was just two to three days.”
Who says Krispy Kreme whole wheat doughnuts are not healthy? Come on! It’s the Twinkie alternative.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17316438/site/newsweek/
Jeff Ventura // March 4, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Jon: My analogy holds up fine. Further, KK is calling these an alternative for health-conscious people. Read the quote in my post.
It’s deceptive marketing, pure and simple. KK is responsible for accurate marketing, not calling a product something it’s not. People make decisions regarding their health and diet based on this marketing spin, and the very least KK can do is not try to slather lipstick all over the pig.
Regardless, we disagree. That’s OK.
Sandy // March 5, 2007 at 11:30 am
Actually, this VP is a piker compared to the claims that populate your average health food store. You can’t eat your way to health, but because the Center for Science in the Public Interest and other organizations regularly demonize a single component of food as the source of evil in the modern world, companies are able to advertise a quirk of their products as “healthier” more effectively.
Seriously, this statement barely registers on my outrage-o-meter. What this guy says is much more regulated than nutritional supplement makers who routinely have to only put in tiny print “these statements have not been evaluated by the US Food and Drug Administration” to be able to claim that their product cures cancer or prevents colds. And organic food? Not proven to be more healthy than the equivalent non-organic food, yet it’s sold as a “healthier” alternative.
By comparison, an actual increase in fiber and reduction in calories is positively virtuous.
And, no, I’m not adding the whole wheat donuts to my diet. When I want to be bad, I don’t want to be good.
heather // March 6, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Hey Bro. I’m somewhat torn on this one. While I see your point about KK taking advantage of an uneducated consumer, if I’m going to be disgusted by anything it’s that consumers are so uneducated that they might actually buy into this crap. When looking for healthy, or healthier, one should not turn to a doughnut shop. If people can’t figure that out, we’re in some serious trouble.
Owen // March 7, 2007 at 12:43 am
It’s a donut; nobody expects it to be healthy. And the press release only says “an ‘alternative’ for health conscious consumers,” so I don’t see how it’s misleading or deceptive.
Paul // March 7, 2007 at 3:09 am
@Owen
Yeah, it’s a donut, but no one is forcing KK to fry them in artificial hydrogenated oils by deliver loads of trans fats to your system.
And KK has no right to associate something with “healthy” when they could easily fry the donuts in natural oils, except that the bean counters want to save a few pennies using the partially hydrogenated stuff. There’s no excuse for this kind of practice.
Shawn Honnick // March 7, 2007 at 1:17 pm
Great read and info. Funny, the MSNBC article now reads, “Updated: 7:18 p.m. ET March 5, 2007″ but still shows 350 calories as the top spot! And it’s certainly no mistake that the KK nutritional information opens at 20% size. There really should be regulations about this kind of thing. I strongly suspect the MSNBC is “advertorial” in nature. It would be great if they had to publish the names of the folks within their own organization that pushed the story whenever a company or product is mentioned. If someone within a news organization (above the editors and writers) had to put their names on it these fluff pieces, we wouldn’t see this kind of “news” at all.
Owen // March 7, 2007 at 8:08 pm
@ Paul,
No, it wouldn’t be that easy to eliminate partially hydrogenated oils, as many companies are aware. Everyone knows donuts are bad for you. And there is no good way to make a donut healthy without taking away what makes them good… the taste.
If you were Krispy Kreme, who would you most want to satisfy…the regular donut-buying customer who might want an alternative, or a health advocate who rarely even eats donuts?
Raindirainbow // March 9, 2007 at 3:53 pm
Krispy Kreme donuts…….Fucking yum!!
Mea Culpa // March 12, 2007 at 9:03 am
“Krispy Kreme announced they are coming out with a low-fat, 180 calorie, whole-wheat donut. This amazing whole wheat donut is called a bagel. ”
- Conan O’Brien
Mea Culpa // March 25, 2007 at 8:03 pm
How about a McDonald’s Chicken McNugget?
This ingredient list makes Krispy Kreme look healthy…the Twinkie tame…
The following is from The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan:
“The ingredients listed in the flyer suggest a lot of thought goes into a nugget, that and a lot of corn. Of the thirty-eight ingredients it takes to make a McNugget, I counted thirteen that can be derived from corn: the corn-fed chicken itself; modified cornstarch (to bind the pulverized chicken meat); mono-, tri-, and diglycerides (emulsifiers, which keep the fats and water from separating); dextrose; lecithin (another emulsifier); chicken broth (to restore some of the flavor that processing leeches out); yellow corn flour and more modified cornstarch (for the batter); cornstarch (a filler); vegetable shortening; partially hydrogenated corn oil; and citric acid as a preservative. A couple of other plants take part in the nugget: There’s some wheat in the batter, and on any given day the hydrogenated oil could come from soybeans, canola, or cotton rather than corn, depending on the market price and availability.
According to the handout, McNuggets also contain several completely synthetic ingredients, quasiedible substances that ultimately come not from a corn or soybean field but form a petroleum refinery or chemical plant. These chemicals are what make modern processed food possible, by keeping the organic materials in them from going bad or looking strange after months in the freezer or on the road. Listed first are the “leavening agents”: sodium aluminum phosphate, mono-calcium phosphate, sodium acid pyrophosphate, and calcium lactate. These are antioxidants added to keep the various animal and vegetable fats involved in a nugget from turning rancid. Then there are “anti-foaming agents” like dimethylpolysiloxene, added to the cooking oil to keep the starches from binding to air molecules, so as to produce foam during the fry. The problem is evidently grave enough to warrant adding a toxic chemical to the food: According to the Handbook of Food Additives, dimethylpolysiloxene is a suspected carcinogen and an established mutagen, tumorigen, and reproductive effector; it’s also flammable. But perhaps the most alarming ingredient in a Chicken McNugget is tertiary butylhydroquinone, or TBHQ, an antioxidant derived from petroleum that is either sprayed directly on the nugget or the inside of the box it comes in to “help preserve freshness.” According to A Consumer’s Dictionary of Food Additives, TBHQ is a form of butane (i.e. lighter fluid) the FDA allows processors to use sparingly in our food: It can comprise no more than 0.02 percent of the oil in a nugget. Which is probably just as well, considering that ingesting a single gram of TBHQ can cause “nausea, vomiting, ringing in the ears, delirium, a sense of suffocation, and collapse.” Ingesting five grams of TBHQ can kill.”
Ramblings of a Nut Job » Details, Dumping and Doughnuts // July 10, 2007 at 3:12 pm
[...] was true. Yes, I hang my head in shame. On the bright side, it’s mostly bullshit according to this article so I won’t be rushing over there any time [...]
beach.bouy // October 1, 2007 at 4:48 pm
It is both a shame and a travesty that Krispy Kreme doughnuts are so loaded with trans fats. Here is the most wonderful tasting, utterly delicious doughnut that is so full of poison. Selling Krispy Kreme doughnuts to an unsuspeciting public is like putting rat poison in hamburger and giving it to the dog.
I only hope that one day soon, someone sues the executive decision makers at Krispy Kreme and makes them pay handsomely for their “trans”gressions against innocent, unsuspecting people who get sick or die due to consumption of deadly Krispy Kreme doughnuts.
They should be put in prison and made to eat a half-dozen of their own doughnuts every day until their term is up.
mccarthy // October 17, 2007 at 1:25 am
She jenny mccarthy video kneeled in an early morning erection. I demurred.
Ryan // December 4, 2007 at 1:22 am
Man you guys are pretty harsh on KKD. You act like they are a tobacco company. Donuts have been around forever, trans fats were just recently discovered to be a health risk. Do you really expect a billion dollar industry to just switch over because their product is suddenly unhealthy(ier)?
Big bad KKD preying on uneducated Americans. There is a part of that sentence that is wrong, but it doesn’t involve Krispy Kreme. There isn’t nicotine in donuts, people can stop eating if they want.
Supply and demand. People want donuts, Krisy Kreme sells them.
octinosm // December 8, 2007 at 5:26 am
braces fetish Ok. No man came in school well, mashing your ass and mouthed her skirt instead.
gokApevegealk // February 7, 2008 at 8:53 am
Siga las instrucciones cuidadosamente y preg?ntele a su doctor o farmac?utico si no est? seguro sobre cu?nta Accutane debe tomar. Puede tomar varias semanas o m?s tiempo para que sienta el beneficio total de este medicamento. El acn? puede empeorar durante el comienzo del tratamiento. Esto es normal y no significa que el medicamento no est? funcionando. Comprar Accutane Farmacia
Comprar Isotretinoin Accutane online
dnocirefnu // June 12, 2008 at 8:22 am
I didn t really shakira ass great video for attention the knot so he.
medical // December 4, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Especially medical fetish teen the couch. Wait. Especially the gas to have.
nude // December 11, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Cindy squirmed nude beauty pageants out. Alana. Melinda, oh god, now.
htihvumvyb // December 22, 2008 at 10:46 pm
bodybuilder sex
ukuwsytil // January 2, 2009 at 2:26 pm
german porn movies hot german sex