Nohr 1

Emily Nohr
Professor Cynthia Hamlet
English 102 Section 15
3 October 2015
Fruct Up: Annotated Bibliography
Cross, Donna Woolfolk. "Propaganda: How Not to Be Bamboozled." Language Awareness:
Readings for College Writers. Ed. Karen S. Henry. 11. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's,
1977. 209-219. Print.
Donna Woolfolk's essay summarizes some of the main propaganda tactics that
propagandists use to manipulate their audiences. After giving a brief definition of propaganda
and explaining how it can be used both positively and negatively, she dives into the different
tricks that we are exposed to everyday by corporations and politicians. These tactics include
name-calling, which literally means to call someone names or criticize their ideas in the attempt
attach bad connotations to them; glittering generalities, basically the opposite of name-calling the
speaker associates "virtue-words" with specific people or policies in order to get us to blinding
accept or agree with them; plain folks appeal is as it sounds, the propagandist want to make us
think that they are one of us; stroking entails telling the audience what we want to hear with
compliments and such; argumentum ad hominem involves attacking someone personally to
distract us from the what the actual issue being discussed is about; transfer, which uses the
process of association to get people to either accept or condemn a person or idea; bandwagon,
attempts to get others support because it is the popular thing to do; faulty cause and effect, as it is
named, this device associates a cause-and-effect relationship that is not true or accurate, false
analogy compares two ideas or events that are not similar, making it an unfair comparison;
begging the question, this tactic actually ignores the question and instead the person assumes
their point, pressing their opinions upon the listener; false dilemma creates a black-and-white
scenario where the two options are completely on different sides of the spectrum; card stacking,
a sneaky tactic which takes one set of facts to influence our judgement and ignores any other side
of the argument or topic; and testimonial, which uses a famous person or expert in a field to
endorse a product or idea. After explaining each device Cross tells how to avoid falling into
these traps. All of the advice is mainly the same for each tactic, which is to think critically and
ask questions before accepting what we are being told.
Being that our textbook and the essays in it are the basis for our essay, I would say Donna
Woolfolk is a reputable source. In the essay, she defines propaganda and classifies the different
devices that are used by propagandists to spread their propaganda. Cross is not bias on
propaganda for she says it can be used both positively and negatively. All of the devices are
thoroughly explained and the examples are effective and easy to understand. Her masters in
English gives her more credibility and her other works such as Mediaspeak and Speaking of
Words demonstrate her experience with the topic.

Nohr 2
How Donna Cross formatted her essay really helps to use it in my own. The way she
singles out each trick and focuses solely on one at a time, giving more information on each one,
allows me to focus on the individual tactics that the American food complex uses in their own
propaganda. This essay influences my paper for it is the entire basis of what I am writing about. I
want to focus on three main tactics she discusses: Glittering Generalities, Card Stacking and
Testimonials. How Not to Be Bamboozled has completely change my perception of what I am
exposed to everyday and helped me to be more critical of what I read, including the rest of the
research I did for this paper.
Fed Up. Dir. Stephanie Soechtig. Perf. Katie Couric. Atlas Films. 2014. DVD.
Fed Up is a documentary that focuses on the rise of childhood obesity in our country and
the role added sugar plays in the epidemic. Because sugar is found in so many products that
many would not suspect, one's daily consumption of sugar soars above the recommended amount
without even realizing it. With it being in most foods and having such addictive qualities, people
are legitimately becoming addicted to food. It brings to light the sad truths about sugar and how
our body responds to it in the large quantities most people consume it in. The excess sugar
quickly turns into fat in our bodies, raising our levels of insulin and effecting how our brain
processes it. Fed Up also raises the issue of how the food industry, which is in close association
with the sugar industry, has a substantial influence on the U.S. administration and the regulations
they make pertaining to labeling and nutritional suggestions. The focus goes to how the
corporations reel in children to create lifelong customers by introducing such products in the
schools, which is where government subsidizing comes into play. It seems the government
prefers to protect the backs of these industries rather than looking out for the citizens best
interests at times. The entire film introduces the issues with the food industry and how the
nation's rising health epidemics can be avoided if we stop overlooking what the essential
problem is, sugar.
With numerous doctors and testimonials from people who are experiencing the
challenges of obesity, the documentary is definitely a reputable source. Stephanie Soechtig, the
director, does not necessarily have a background in nutritional sciences but her filmography
includes a variety of documentaries about many other ongoing issues in the world which are
continuously trying to be swept under the rug by those who the released information would hurt,
such as the issue on topic in this film. The doctors and nutritionists in the film are some of the
top names in the field and it is a little difficult to be funded by other groups such as the vegetable
industry, so the information being given is not really subject to being discredited. Of course the
film is going to be bias, but the facts are there and the majority if not all of what is discussed is
openly documented and can be found anywhere or it is common knowledge. Being that it is a
popular source, they try to make it entertaining and appeal to the heart with the crying and
suffering fat children but in the end, all of it is relevant.
Fed Up is where I am getting the majority of the information for my argument in the
paper. It gives a lot of background on "Big Food" and how they have come to obtain so much
power over the decades, and how food morphed into what it has become today. There are a lot of
statistics and numbers that are discussed and examples of how the industry coaxes the public into
thinking their food has nutritional value, which involves propaganda. This source actually helped
me to narrow down my topic to just sugar because of how many examples there are to just how
much these companies are lacking in morality with their only concern being more profit.

Nohr 3
Moss, Michael. Salt, Sugar, Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. New York: Random House,
2013. Print.
Salt, Sugar, and Fat falls into the same premise as Food Politics but digs a little deeper
into the disturbing truthes of what the food conglomerates do to get us hooked to their food. Big
name companies such as Coca-Cola, General Mills, Lunchables and Kraft are featured in the
book, and not in good context. Mr. Moss tells of what he experienced in the labatories and
factories where foods are tested and produced. While I was only able to read on the Sugar section
(not Fat or Salt), I can really only summarize that part of the book. There are many disclosures
and "confessions" from people who use to be in the industry, even some ex-CEOS. The author
goes into detail of how first the child is exploited to gain a life-long customer. This section
includes how the bliss point is found, a term I had not yet heard of but am now too familiar with.
The bliss point is the optimum amount of sugar added to food, where if anymore is added, the
product is not as well received. Children like even higher amounts of sugar so when we start
them young, they will come to think all food should taste sweet for the rest of their life. The
research done by these companies is also discussed, and how sometimes it is incomplete, leaving
results to remain a mystery. Another main topic is how the industry leaves us craving the sweet
goodness. This also includes the bliss point, but more of how there is a bliss point in more that
just soda and candy but pretty much all processed foods. Another way we've been hooked is with
the convenince factor of modern foods. Grabbing a bottle of orange juice is a lot easier than
squeezing it fresh every morning, the only con is how much sugar is added to such convenient
food. The industries hot persuit for customers is also an intense battlefield that consumers only
get caught in. With low prices and the immense amounts of money used for target marketing, it
is nearly impossible to hide from their influence. These dirty tricks are a contributing factor as to
why we consume sugar like we do.
Michael Moss is a Pulitzer Prize award winning investigative reporter who has written
for the New York Times as well as the Wall Street Journal. His reputable background is a basis
for the credability of this book. Sixty-five pages of the book include acknowledments and notes
for the information that his has included in his writing. The testimonials from those who use to
be a part of the industry only firther supports the claims he writes about. Michael Moss is
actually featured in That Sugar Film as well, sort of linking many of sources to one another,
allowing coverage of most of the industry's different aspects.
While Food Politics covered the more political features, this book helps to showcase how
misguided the food industry is in their quest for money. It completes my argument by covering
yet another side of the story, the more unethical part. He explains many processes of how the
food products are created and how unnutritional it is, which further supports my thesis.

Nestle, Marion. Food Politics: How the Food Industry Influences Nutrition and Health.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007. Print.
In Food Politics, Marion Nestle exposes the many tricks the tremendously competitive
food market takes part in to gain customers and money. In an attempt to get more people to eat
even more food, nutrition and health are pushed aside and forgotten about. Detailed accounts are

Nohr 4
given of what big companies do to persuade the consumers and increase profits. Many times the
food industry is compared with Big Tobacco in the book because of the similar tactics that are
being used and the fact that tobacco companies actually own or share interest in these
corporations. With the ongoing interference in research, there is no wonder why so many are
confused or not knowledgeable at all with what proper nutrition is. The book focuses on the
industry's countless marketing practices they have taken part in over the years, many of which
are shameful. By discrediting those who are the most credible, influencing the government,
exploiting children and lack of regulation, they are capable of spewing just about any nonsense
they want to make their products look good.
Marion Nestle seems to be one of the most legitimate individuals to have a voice on these
concerns. She has earned a PhD in molecular biology and an M.P.H in public health nutrition
from Berkeley. She has had personal experience with the food industry's PR trying to discredit
this book and how they influence what is put in journals when she worked as a journalist and
researcher. For two years Nestle was also senior nutrition policy advisor in the Department of
Health and Human Services. Five of the books she has written about nutrition and the politics
involved have won awards. With such a background and first-person experience, her knowledge
on the subject is undeniable. She also continues to update Food Politics as the years go on and
new information is available to update the book, which I think is important. The back of the book
is full of notes from where her information has come from, so it is sourced which is very
important.
The information Nestle shares will only strengthen my argument as to how disgusting
Big Food really is. Her writings cover the political and propaganda side of my argument very
well, and give a lot of supporting evidence to my paper. There is so much information in book
yet it is easy to understand and grasp the entirety of what she is saying. It will be a good source
for showing how the companies limit our diets and weaken our health.
Nursing Your Sweet Tooth. onlinenursingprograms.com. Web.
This infograph gives a brief look at modern sugar statistics, most of which have to do
with consumption. The graphics are really neat and designed nicely.There is a lot of comparison
as to what the different amounts of sugar look like when compiled together. It also mentions the
"Biggest Culprits" of where we get the majority of the sugar we consume. Diseases linked to
sugar overconsumption are shown, which I think is really important as well.
The majority of the information in the infograph is also in the other sources that I have
for my paper. Knowing that is isn't drastically different or giving opposing information is also a
good sign. At the bottom there is a list of the sources that were used for the information, giving
even more credability. While the sources could be better, the information is still broadly used,
even in my other sources so I know it is credible.
I plan to use this source just for the opening introduction. I think it is a good way to start
the essay with some shocking and grotesque statistics.
That Sugar Film. Dir. Damon Gameau. Madman Production Company. 2014. DVD.
This film reminded me a lot of the documentary Supersize Me except with a lot more
detailed information. Damon Gameau decides to change his diet from a whole food type diet to
one where he eats only foods that are perceived to be healthy but are in fact just processed

Nohr 5
products including low-fat alternatives and items with hidden sugar. With doctors involved
through the whole process and observing the changes taking place in his body, the end results are
unbelievable. In six weeks he gained 15 pounds, added at least eight centimeters around his
stomach and his organs took a negative turn. While on this experiment, he exposes how much
hidden sugar is in the foods we eat. He thought it would be impossible to consume 40 teaspoons
of sugar every day and it is shocking just how easily it actually is. One of the most amazing parts
was how in counting calories, he was actually taking in less calories yet gaining weight
extremely fast. While traveling to different countries, he also exposes many of the issues
"plaguing" the industry as well as some of the propaganda they use for their benefit.
The documentary includes some of the same doctors that are interviewed in Fed Up, all
of whom have many credentials in health and nutrition. The credibility is there because the
viewer is watching firsthand how the food is affecting Damon's body and his physical and mental
health. While drastically changing ones diet the way he does, of course it will affect him no
matter what but his vital organs went downhill so fast that it is undeniable these foods are
contributing to the health epidemic countries around the world are facing. He single handedly
discredits the idea that all calories are the same, which is one of the main arguments that the food
companies make, especially those involved in sodas and other sugary beverages. This along with
Fed Up were two of the most eye-opening sources, especially when you see the issues going on
in states such as Kentucky with the teenagers and children whose mouths are in such bad
condition. The dentist who goes around in his RV fixing peoples teeth is a story you would hear
in a third world country. You wouldn't think it to be something happening in America. It helps to
show just was a prevalent problem we have in our country.
The personal experiences that Gameau goes through are what I want to add to my paper.
The calorie-counting will be useful in my section of when I talk about the Glittering Generalities
and the slogans that the industry throws in the public's face. The topic of how sugar is effecting
behavior patterns will also be pertinent to my paper I think, depending on the direction I decide
to go. Some of the information is similar to that of Fed Up, so I can use bits and pieces from each
to add more variety to my sources instead of just using one.
WHO. WHO Calls On Countries to Reduce Sugars Intake Among Adults and Children. 4 March
2015. Web. 19 September 2015.
This short press release that the World Health Organization issued recommends that a
restriction of sugar is necessary for a healthy well-being. It states that the daily intake of free
sugars should be restricted to six teaspoons for women and nine for men for added health
benefits. The statement clarifies that it is not referring to sugars in fresh fruits and vegetables or
those naturally present in milk but the hidden sugars that can be found in unsuspecting foods.
Examples include ketchup and soda, which one can exceeds the daily recommended limit. The
WHO gives an explanation to the reduction of sugar, stating studies show those who consume
less sugar weigh less and have fewer dental issues.
The World Health Organization lays the foundation for health standards for most of the
world. This international organization is very credible and holds a strong reputation. The purpose
of this document is to educate the populations on nutrition and help aide them towards better
health. Citing exactly what studies they are basing the information from would help support their
claims, so that is one weakness in the press release.

Nohr 6
It is important to use such a reputable source in my paper to show what the global
standard and recommended sugar intake actually is in order to compare how much sugar is
actually consumed everyday by individuals. The difference is alarming. While most people
probably do not go on the WHO website, this information does not make it on to most news
outlets so it is a pretty unknown nutritional suggestion, yet one of the most important in my
opinion. In order to make my claim that too much sugar is being consumed, I need back it with
fact and substantial support such as this.