Julian Graves Responds to 'Sugar Pushers' Post (Worst Sugar Pushers Part 2)

The Worst Sugar Pushers of all: Health Food Stores
Julian Graves Responds to 'Sugar Pushers' Post (Worst Sugar Pushers Part 2)
The Worst Sugar Pushers of All Part 3 - Holland and Barrett Takes Centre Stage

I was pleased to receive an email from a representative of Julian Graves yesterday in response to my post The Worst Sugar Pushers of all: Health Food Stores. Here is what they said:

First of all, we are not a health food store and have never positioned ourselves as such. We market ourselves as a specialist food retailer.

Secondly, we believe very strongly in the 80:20 rule – ie eat healthily 80% of the time and allow yourself ‘a bit of what you fancy’ treats 20% of the time. (Gillian McKeith advocates 90:10 but many people find this is too rigid).

Thirdly, we do not market to children, our customer profile is 50+ who are probably well aware of the effects of eating sugar in their diet. We also do not promote our confectionery range in our instore literature except at Christmas, when we believe that if you can’t indulge yourself at Christmas, then when can you?

Fourthly, if people eat sugar in a sensible way, ie not all day, in small amounts and ensure they clean their teeth after eating sugary food, they should be ok.

Fifthly, all our products have the ingredients listed on the packaging so people know whether they contain sugar or not. We do not live in a police state (yet) where consumers’ purchases are monitored and censored. People have the right to make up their own mind about what they eat or don’t eat.

And finally, we do not sell alcohol, cigarettes or cigars which, to my mind, are far worse for you than a few sweets a day.

I will first say that I am grateful that they responded – they could easily have ignored me. So out of deference, I will try to exercise restraint.

Here are my responses:

First of all, we are not a health food store and have never positioned ourselves as such. We market ourselves as a specialist food retailer.
On your website’s About Us page you describe yourselves as '...the UK's largest independent specialist natural food and ingredients retailer…’ I don’t intend to get into a debate about semantics, but the term ‘natural food’ surely implies ‘health food’; and whilst you may say you do not position yourselves as a health food retailer, I believe most people see you as such. It would be rather snide of you to suggest this is pure accident. One more point - refined sugar has been highly processed, so I think most people would agree that foods containing it are therefore not natural. Even if we ignore my previous points and define your positioning by literal interpretation of your own website, you are selling products which fall outside the claimed scope.

Secondly, we believe very strongly in the 80:20 rule – ie eat healthily 80% of the time and allow yourself ‘a bit of what you fancy’ treats 20% of the time. (Gillian McKeith advocates 90:10 but many people find this is too rigid).
The fundamental problem with this approach is that sugar is an addictive substance. There is evidence in scientific literature (such as here), but more importantly many testimonies from people (such as here) to support this notion. You would not say to a smoker ‘only smoke 20% of the time’ and you will be fine, because you know they would not be able to do this. For many people, once their palate has been affected by sugary food, it is very hard to restrict its consumption to 80% of the time.

Thirdly, we do not market to children, our customer profile is 50+ who are probably well aware of the effects of eating sugar in their diet. We also do not promote our confectionery range in our instore literature except at Christmas, when we believe that if you can’t indulge yourself at Christmas, then when can you?
See my response to the final point.

Fourthly, if people eat sugar in a sensible way, ie not all day, in small amounts and ensure they clean their teeth after eating sugary food, they should be ok.
See my response to the second point – it’s addictive, so being sensible is a problem. Also, just so you know, cleaning your teeth straight after eating sugary food may be a bad idea. My dentist recently told me not to do it and the advice on the British Dental Health Foundation website says “It is best not to brush your teeth until at least one hour after eating.”

Fifthly, all our products have the ingredients listed on the packaging so people know whether they contain sugar or not. We do not live in a police state (yet) where consumers’ purchases are monitored and censored. People have the right to make up their own mind about what they eat or don’t eat.
See my point in the post about ingredients – not all people read or understand them. Since my central argument is that you are selling unhealthy food when people see you as a health food shop, I see little point in getting into a debate about consumer choice vs. state intervention.

And finally, we do not sell alcohol, cigarettes or cigars which, to my mind, are far worse for you than a few sweets a day.
I had to chuckle at this one. There is always something worse. If, in response to criticism, Marlboro proudly trumpeted that that they do not sell hard drugs to children, there would be laughter and outrage in equal measure. This is playground reasoning.

The Series:
The Worst Sugar Pushers of all: Health Food Stores
Julian Graves Responds to 'Sugar Pushers' Post (Worst Sugar Pushers Part 2)
The Worst Sugar Pushers of All Part 3 - Holland and Barrett Takes Centre Stage

See Also:
New York - Limited Cake Porn but Plenty of Sugar Pushers
New York Part 2 – Another Sugar Pusher and Cake Security Threat
We're all Junkies
Why (Refined) Sugar is Bad: Some References