I had a bubble burst recently. In June, a BBC Panorama documentary looked at the possible impact of so-called ultra-processed foods (which make up about half the things we now eat in the UK) and also revealed that some products – including mass-produced brown bread and many ready meals – contain a long list of chemicals which might be harmful to our health.
It also reviewed research on the negative health effects of certain additives such as aspartame – a sweetener which the World Health Organisation has investigated, and is currently preparing to label as “possibly carcinogenic to humans” – present in many food products including Diet Coke (which has always been a favourite of mine).
It wasn’t the first time I had heard about these things. But, deep in the “diet product = good, because no sugar = good for me” trap, I didn’t really ever take it in to hear it all (plus, I also just really liked Diet Coke).
The BBC programme also talked about the tactics deployed by food producers to get people to buy these products. Experts in the documentary explained that is something they refer to as the “health halo” – when packaging says things like “high in fibre” or “low in sugar” and other “magic words” to make people think the product is healthy when it maybe isn’t. One said: “If anything ever says ‘low’, ‘reduced’, or ‘no’, I’d always be a bit suspicious, because how else have they, therefore, made that food taste great?”
This form of deception is not something only deployed by the food sector. It is a practice frequently used across different industries. Even a look at June alone showcases several incidents of companies using deception as a marketing ploy.
On top of the Panorama documentary, fast fashion retailer Shein – hugely popular for its very cheap prices – received a backlash last week after inviting a group of influencers to one of their factories in China. People were questioning both the company and the influencers attending on the ethical aspect of such promotion, based on previous reporting.
Prior to the trip, Shein has often made headlines with allegations of forced labour and human rights violations. In October last year, Channel 4 released a documentary which, through hidden cameras, revealed that workers were working 18-hour days, with little or no time off, and little pay.
It is not the first time the company has come under fire. It previously was also accused of “greenwashing” – a practice environmental charity Greenpeace defines as “a PR tactic used to make a company or product appear environmentally friendly, without meaningfully reducing its environmental impact” after launching its “re-sale” platform to promote circulation of “pre-loved” Shein products, when so much of the retailer’s business model is said to rely on overproduction (the platform is said to add thousands of new products each day).
June was also Pride Month. It is a month dedicated to celebrating LGBTQ+ communities all around the world and it is also a month where suddenly many (commercial) organisations will wave the rainbow flag.
What I want to make clear before I go on is that it is not the awareness events that are to blame. It is what companies and organisations make of them that are the problem.
That we need Pride Month more than ever becomes clear based on the continuous backlash and hate, threats of violence – or worse – active physical attacks the LGBTQ+ community faces in the UK.
The problem is not the awareness campaign, but the lack of real action shown by some of the companies appearing to participate in them – also sometimes referred to as “rainbowashing.”
Such lack of authenticity hasn’t gone entirely unnoticed. A YouGov poll from last month found that 75% of people questioned in the UK believe that brands focusing activity on Pride Month “are doing so more for the PR rather than a sincere desire to support the LGBTQ+ community.”
Reacting to the poll’s finding in an interview with Pink News, Marty Davies, joint chief executive at Outvertising – an organisation with the aim to make UK marketing and advertising completely LGBTQIA+ inclusive – said that “the cynicism is unfortunate but unsurprising, given how we’ve been seeing some brands running away from the risk associated with their commitments when push comes to shove.”
Urging companies and brands that come under attack for their Pride campaigns to brave the backlash and not roll back on messaging, they added: “The ‘love is love’, surface-deep efforts we’re more familiar with just aren’t cutting it anymore.”
Another such example is International Women’s Day (IWD). Those who follow Twitter discourse may remember the Gender Pay Gap robot, which – far too often – revealed that the companies tweeting support for #IWD had harrowing gender pay gaps.
The question is – who are these types of campaigns for? They surely don’t seem to be for people affected, without some meaningful action backing them. So, if they solely exist to uphold a public image, they must be for consumers – a PR strategy, more than an actual showcase of solidarity.
Whether it is protecting the planet, or watching out for our own health when it comes to the food we eat, or wanting to support a good cause and a more equal society, the companies using these forms of advertising, all bank on – and eventually cash in on – one thing: consumers who want to do good.
Quite simply this form of tokenism – defined by Merriam Webster as “the policy or practice of making only a symbolic effort” – too often is a cleverly planned way to make money and, when it comes down to it, too often these tactics are successful.
Going back to Shein, despite the continuous stream of criticism and ethical questions raised, the company is soaring in popularity. Recent research by money.co.uk found that it is “the most searched fashion brand worldwide.” This popularity has translated into profits. In a Wired article from May last year, the company was said to have been valued at around £79billion.
So, when it comes to tokenism, we have to stop buying it (quite literally in some instances, such as throwing money at fast fashion brands).
Of course, screaming "boycott" isn’t that easy in some cases. When it comes to food, for example, mass-produced wholemeal bread comes at a fraction of the price of freshly-baked or small batch alternatives. That there is a form of privilege in making choices in these instances is undeniable.
However, even a sense of awareness and a little more scepticism when it comes to these marketing strategies as a whole can go a long way in stopping these practices. Recognising, and calling them out for what they are, is something that we ought to be doing more.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel