Kroger ads are over the item limit for the anti-science express lane

Going grocery shopping can be quite obnoxious for a chemistry teacher. It’s not just the chemical-free labels but rather an overwhelming amount of misleading and deceptive marketing. It is a stark reminder that there are relentless forces pushing back regardless of how hard I work to teach science, evidence-based thinking and chemistry knowledge. For every time a student learns how to predict the products of a chemical reaction they will be inundated with non-GMO labels. Every particle representation that pushes their thinking will be countered by claims that only ingredients with names that can easily be pronounced are used.

These marketing schemes cause a widespread distrust for many things like aspartame, vaccines, MSG and other items that have had false data perpetuated by public hysteria that lacks any evidence. The impacts of these cause a rift between environmental activism and environmental science. And I understand that people do not always have access to trustworthy sources and the risk of getting scammed an extra few dollars is less worrisome than the false alternative. So while I wish more people would buy food that is better for the environment, better for the health of farmers and not actively trying to scam innocent people out of money, I understand why that takes time to transition.

But I am less forgiving of the advertising for those that are aware of these marketing scams like the non-GMO project that help perpetuate fears among consumers just to profit off of their fear. Companies with the resources and knowledge to do the right thing and educate consumers get far too little criticism when they choose instead to push fear-based rhetoric. The following two advertisements are from Kroger’s Simple Truth brand and the second I heard on the radio one day and it infuriated me.

Ad 1 “We’re proud of what’s not in our food, like GMOs (disgusted tone)” https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dlAO/simple-truth-were-proud

Ad 2 “Free from GMOs and free from things you can’t pronounce”

https://www.ispot.tv/ad/IqtV/fred-meyer-simple-truth-products

I wrote about how the advertisement made me feel and received a reply that showed that Kroger both did not read my comment but also apologized for my confusion rather than address their deceptiveness. Their response is Figure 1 found below. Several response emails were redirected with claims that my concerns would be forwarded to marketing and I couldn’t help notice that Kroger was perfectly content to explain how their food was non-GMO initially before they took time to understand my complaint. But once they were aware of everything the evasiveness grew.

Eventually I received a direct response and explanation (Figure 2 below). While I appreciated an actual response I still feel that Kroger is both disingenuous that they have no knowledge of food systems and farming and are merely responding to consumer requests. The advertisements clearly show they are pushing consumers in a particular direction both with their tone, phrasing and the pronounceable ingredient comment in ad 2. However, I also have hope that they will respond. While Kroger was avoiding my emails I looked through their social media and found a brilliant response where an employee took the time to thoroughly explain pesticides, organic pesticides and more to a customer that appeared to not be aware (Figure 3 below).

So if you are a science teacher, an environmentalist or someone who’s just tired of having the dumbest possible labeling shoved in your face everytime you walk into a grocery store, please consider sending Kroger a message letting them know you would like to see more pro-GMO marketing, more educational labeling and fewer chemophobic messages. If you'd like to learn more about GMOs here are some helpful links. Ingredients in a banana can be found here. If you can pronounce it you should eat it meme.

Figure 1: Initial email response from Kroger after my complaint that their advertisements promoted anti-science

Figure 2: Email response from Kroger after I asked for a medical condition that would be positively impacted by a non-GMO diet

Do people with lighter skin have different sunscreen needs?

We spent a class period researching in groups and a class period discussing our findings.  The prompt was to construct an argument that skin color matters for sunscreen use and an argument that skin color does not matter.  From there our groups diverged greatly as they built up arguments and pertinent explanations.  

Figure 1:  Whiteboard 1 explores the mechanism by which UV light causes DNA mutations

The wide variety of information in the various whiteboards led to some great discussion on content as well as generic science.  We discussed if knowing the mechanism of DNA damage by UV light is relevant so long as we see the data in Whiteboard 2 (below).  Students split but offered mostly arguments that mechanism knowledge is highly relevant to evaluate the conclusions from the data of skin cancer rates.  Multiple examples were offered such as some races might be located where they experience different exposure to sunlight, different races might also use different amounts of sunscreen on average and reporting of race can be inconsistent.  In general most students felt that just knowing skin cancer rates is insufficient and could be correlation without causation.  

We also talked about the mechanism by which UV light originates and under what conditions an electron can accelerate so much that it produces such high frequency light.  We connected the emission and absorption of light with the Balmer series for hydrogen.  We reviewed the spacing of energy levels and I instructed about the differences in energy level spacings for gaseous atoms/ions compared to molecular excitations.  We connected this later with Whiteboard 6 by talking about how a slight adjustment to a molecule can cause a minor change in the frequencies of light absorbed and how pigments and dye research often utilizes electron rich and electron deficient functional groups to shift color.   

Figure 2:  Whiteboard 2 found cancer rates based on race

Figure 3:  Whiteboard 3 went full “Natural News” to locate some arguments against
sunscreen

This board led to a good discussion on sources of scientific information, how sources manipulate data and experiment into “clickbait” articles.  We posed the question “Are any of these things actually bad or do they just sound bad?”  For example, if sunscreen ingredients are present in breastmilk, is that bad or is it so infrequent and low in concentration that it is irrelevant?  We talked about how the FDA does not have jurisdiction over supplements and how labels for supplements are sometimes shown to be incorrect.  We also compared this board to the risks of not wearing sunscreen using Whiteboard 2 (above).  

Figure 4:  Whiteboard 4 summarized different wavelengths of UV light and nanoparticles
used for sunscreens

Figure 5:  Whiteboard 5 looks at melanin and interactions of sunscreens with UV light

Figure 6:  Whiteboard 6 looks at different chemical structures utilized in sunscreens

Conclusions that students made included that the SPF data they saw suggested that anything over SPF 50 was a marketing scam and was less healthy than using SPF 50 or lower.  We concluded that the mechanisms by which electrons change motion during electronic transitions in molecules are incredibly difficult to visualize and that this uncertainty can be problematic for understanding.  We concluded that everyone exposed to sun should wear sunscreen because melanin mostly protects from sunburn but not from DNA damage.  We saw a variety of organic molecules used to absorb UV light as well as alternatives such as ZnO nanoparticles.  We started our discussion by looking at how 11 cis-retinal converts into 11 trans-retinal when absorbing visible light and this is the mechanism by which our brain becomes aware of light hitting our retinas.  We talked about the breaking of the pi bond before the rotation occurs and later compared this to potential changes in molecular structure when UV light is absorbed by molecules in sunscreen.  

As a teaching lesson I was highly pleased with the variety of topics to discuss and the variety of information students used to make arguments.  Students looked at chemical structures, DNA damage mechanisms, skin cancer data, sunburn data and how UV light itself varies.  We identified what type of light escapes the sun as a subject that requires more research.  We will continue to use this topic throughout our review.  We saw connections to organic chemistry, quantum chemistry, periodic trends and bonding.  It was interesting to the majority of students.  Some students asked what it was like to be sunburned because they had never experienced it before and most students had limited ideas coming into the discussion but left with much better knowledge.  

IB Chemistry HL

Here are some playlists organized by unit from the IB Chemistry HL Syllabus.

Unit 1 - Stoichiometry

Unit 2/12 - Quantum

Unit 3/13 - Periodic trends + Transition Metals

Unit 4/14 - Bonding

Unit 5/15 - Thermochemistry

Unit 6/16 - Kinetics

Unit 7/17 - Equilibrium

Unit 8/18 - Acid-base

Unit 9/19 - Redox

Unit 10/20 Organic

Unit 11/21 Measurement

Option Unit - Materials

Review songs

Review practice problems + solutions

Review flashcards

Fun Chemistry Demonstrations

Lab Experiments

AP Chemistry Review Flashcards

Flashcards can help prepare you by building recognition speed critical for multiple-choice questions.  Here are some flashcards organized by topic and then mixed review at the end:

Acid-Base

Redox

Kinetics

Bonding

Atomic Structure + Trends

Mixed Topics

All Chemistry Flashcards Playlist