The American Egg Board is a promotional marketing board

美國雞蛋委員會 是一個由美國政府委任的行銷委員會

appointed by the U.S. government whose mission

其任務為「代替雞蛋業者提高蛋的消費需求」

is to " increase demand for egg and egg products"

蛋商如果想自己辦宣傳活動 他們可以天花亂墜的鬼扯

"on behalf of U.S. egg producers."

但若是想動用雞蛋委員會的行銷預算

Now if an individual egg company

也就是說 在聯邦政府的監督下

wants to run an ad campaign

他們可不允許挪用 這些資金來扯謊 人盡皆知

they can say whatever they want,

因此蛋商為了申請補助金 和美國農業部之間往來的信件中

but if an egg corporation wants to dip

關於雞蛋 什麼能說?什麼不能說?

into the 10 million dollars the American Egg Board

就頗發人深省了

sets aside for advertising,

感謝美國的資訊自由法

because the board is overseen by the federal government

我得以取得一些來往郵件

corporations are not allowed to lie with those funds.

當然大部分我拿到的都不值得一提 比方說

What a concept!

「請注意以下項目⋯⋯」

Which leads to quite revealing exchanges

「沙門氏菌危機處理⋯⋯」

between egg corporations that want to use that money

「有問題請洽⋯⋯」

and USDA on what egg companies

還有更絕的

can and cannot say about eggs.

整張紙只寫著 「基於環保考量 請斟酌列印本郵件」

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act

一整張紙!

I was able to get my hands on some of those emails.

我們辛苦的納稅錢阿!

Of course, a lot of what I got looked like this...

但有趣的來了

"Please note a number of items"

某蛋商試圖刊載 對孩童健康有益的零食型錄

about our salmonella crisis module—

然而法律禁止 虛偽不實或引人誤解的廣告

"any questions?"

美國農業部家禽研究中心的負責人提醒他們

Or even better entire sheets of paper

不得說蛋或蛋製品「健康」或「營養」

that literally just said this.

因為「健康」或「營養」等字眼 隱含這些食物對你有益

That was the whole sheet of paper.

考量到蛋的飽和脂肪及膽固醇含量

Our tax dollars hard at work.

說蛋「健康」或「營養」顯然有問題

But check this out.

這可是美國農業部說的!

This is some egg company trying to put out a brochure

然而美國農業部建議他們 可以說蛋的「養分密度高」

on healthy snacking for kids.

且慢

But because of existing laws

為什麼能說「養分密度高」卻不能說「營養」?

against false and misleading advertising

因為所謂的「養分密度高」 並沒有明確的法律定義

the head of the USDA's poultry

你也可以說奶油捲心餅 或可口可樂「養分密度高」

research and promotion programs reminds them

但一個食物必須是「營養的」 才能合法地說它「營養」

that you can't couch eggs or egg products

舉例來說 蛋商想推這個廣告

as being healthy or nutritious.

說蛋是「有助於減重」的「營養補給站」

See the words nutritious and healthy

※幾年前FTC(聯邦交易委員會)警告我們不得稱蛋是低卡食物...※ 美國農業部就得提醒他們

carry certain connotations

考量到蛋的脂肪和膽固醇含量 不得描述蛋是「低卡食物」

(you know that a food is actually good for you),

事實上一顆蛋的熱量 幾乎是低卡食物的兩倍

but because eggs have the amount of cholesterol they do

「營養補給站」同樣不能使用

(plus all the saturated fat)

蛋商表示「好吧 採取B計畫

the words healthy and nutritious are problematic

廣告標題下為——你朝思暮想的蛋營養」

when it comes to eggs.

不成!

This is the USDA saying this!

蛋再次因為飽和脂肪及膽固醇 不符合「營養」的定義而被打槍

However, the USDA helpfully suggests,

這廣告最後只好採用

you could say eggs are nutrient dense.

「滿足真正的渴望」

Wait a second!

並用「能減少飢餓感」取代「有助於減重」

Why can you say eggs are nutrient dense but not nutritious?

美國農業部讚賞他們的小聰明： 沒問題 食物吃下肚確實能減少飢餓感

Because there's no legal definition of nutrient dense.

阿不就好棒棒

You can say Twinkies and Coca Cola are nutrient dense,

蛋商甚至不得說蛋是相對低卡的食物

but legally, you can't say something is nutritious

不得說低飽合脂肪——顯然不是

unless it's actually... nutritious!

不得說相對低脂——當然不是!

So for example, the egg industry wanted to run this ad

也不得說蛋是豐富的 蛋白質來源——阿它就不是阿!

calling eggs a nutritional powerhouse

※「豐富的(rich)」定義代表極好的來源，能提供20%每日所需(RDI)※ 也不得說蛋是豐富的 蛋白質來源——阿它就不是阿!

that aids in weight loss.

刊登 「雞蛋營養充沛」不合法

The USDA had to remind the industry

也不能昧著良心說蛋有「高營養價值」

you can't portray eggs as a diet food

反正提到「營養」就是不行

because of the fat and cholesterol content.

不能說「營養」 、 不能說「營養」

In fact, they have nearly twice the calories

有時要像跳針般地提醒蛋商

of anything that can be called low-calorie.

蛋的膽固醇太多也不能說蛋能「滋養」你

"Nutritional powerhouse" can't be used either.

不能說蛋「有益健康」

Fine, the industry said, they'll move to plan B,

當然也不能說「健康」 沒看到裡面有多少膽固醇嗎?

and headline the ad Egg-ceptional nutrition.

不能說「健康」

Nope, because again given the saturated fat and cholesterol

甚至也不能說「供應健康養分」

you can't legally call eggs nutritious.

既然不能說蛋是每日的「健康」泉源

So, the ad ended up "find true satisfaction"

美國農業部建議改用「滿足」

and instead of weight loss they had to go with

不得稱蛋是「健康」的食材 但可以稱為「辨識度高」的食材

"can reduce hunger."

不能謊稱「蛋對你有益」 不得說「蛋對人有益」

USDA congratulated them on their cleverness.

總之蛋商依法不得使用 「健康」或「營養」這類的字眼

Yes, a food that when eaten can reduce hunger—

美國食品藥物管理局 規定產品若要標示為「健康」

what a concept!

必須滿足低飽和脂肪的規範——雞蛋不合格 ※低飽和脂肪: 少於1g/份或10%以下熱量來自飽和脂肪 ※膽固醇: 少於90mg/份

You can't even call eggs a food relatively low in calories.

並且每份膽固醇還要少於90mg ——光是半顆蛋就超標 ※低飽和脂肪: 少於1g/份或10%以下熱量來自飽和脂肪 ※膽固醇: 少於90mg/份

Can't say eggs are low in saturated fat—they're not.

就像不能標榜冰淇淋對骨骼有益

Can't say they're relative low in fat.

※冰淇淋的高脂肪含量被視為增加骨質疏鬆風險的原因之一 就像不能標榜冰淇淋對骨骼有益

Can't even call them a rich source of protein,

※冰淇淋的高脂肪含量被視為增加骨質疏鬆風險的原因之一

because they're not.

遠超過膽固醇標準的蛋 也不得標示為「健康」 ※冰淇淋的高脂肪含量被視為增加骨質疏鬆風險的原因之一

It's illegal to advertise that eggs pack a nutritional wallop—

遠超過膽固醇標準的蛋 也不得標示為「健康」

can't truthfully say that,

蛋商甚至不得在盒裝上標示 「蛋是健康均衡飲食的一環」

or have a high nutritional content.

因為這會誤導消費者

You can't say eggs are "nutritious" at all.

根據美國農業部的報告

Can't say nutritious;

由於蛋有大量的脂肪及膽固醇

cannot say eggs are nutritious.

會導致心血管疾病——美國的首要死因

(Sometimes you have to tell the industry a few times).

不僅是蛋 連蛋雞的真相 業者都無法承擔公開後所帶來的後果

Eggs have so much cholesterol

他們把5-10隻蛋雞硬塞進 檔案櫃大小的籠子內渡過餘生

you can't even say they contribute nutritionally.

當媒體來採訪取材時 雞蛋委員會卻下了指示：

Can't say eggs are healthful,

「切勿展示多隻蛋雞擠在籠內的畫面

certainly can't say they're healthy—

看起來太擁擠會招致動權人士的批判」

have you seen how much cholesterol

換句話說 他們得隱瞞「真相」

there are in those things?

業者不僅在宣傳「健康」上受阻

Can't say healthy.

他們甚至不得提及蛋是「安全的」

Can't even say eggs contribute healthful components.

所有和「安全」相關的字眼必須全數撤除

Since you can't say eggs are a healthy start to the day,

因為美國境內由雞蛋造成的 沙門氏菌感染每年有十萬起以上

the USDA suggests satisfying start.

針對多起由雞蛋引發的 沙門氏菌感染 雞蛋委員會的回覆是：

Can't call eggs a healthful ingredient,

「沙門氏菌是自然界中存在的細菌」

but you can call eggs a recognizable ingredient.

蛋商惟恐造成促銷的反效果 認為沒必要在此多加著墨

Can't truthfully say eggs are good for you.

因為此回覆暗示了除非完全 不吃蛋 否則沒辦法全然迴避沙門氏菌

Can't say they're good for you.

由於沙門氏菌 雞蛋委員會完全不得提及「半熟」

By law, the egg industry

他們必須聲明要將蛋煮至完全凝固

"needs to steer clear of words like healthy or nutritious."

連雞蛋委員會贊助的研究

For a food to be labeled "healthy" under FDA rules,

都顯示半熟是不安全的烹調手法

it has to be low in saturated fat—

除了沙門氏菌之外 鑒於爆發禽流感的潛在可能

eggs fail that test—

蛋仍然必須煮熟至完全凝固

and less that 90mg of cholesterol per serving—

雞蛋委員會的行銷 副總向美國農業部抱怨

even half an egg fails that criteria.

他們不想強行規定蛋黃必須全熟

For the same reason you can't tout ice cream

因為曾有一篇華盛頓郵報的文章寫道

for healthy bones,

只要不是孕婦 嬰兒 老年人或患有 慢性疾病者 半熟的蛋應該都算是安全的

you can't say eggs are healthy because

結果那篇報導是個美麗的錯誤

they exceed the limit for cholesterol.

對任何人來說 只要是半熟的蛋就不安全

Egg corporations aren't even allowed to say things like

美國農業部貼心地建議 把「安全」換成「新鮮」

"Eggs are an important part of a well balanced, healthy diet",

但是不得稱蛋是「安全的」

on an egg carton because

不得寫「吃得安心」

it would be considered misleading,

不得寫「安全的」

according to the USDA's National Egg Supervisor

甚至不得提到「安全」

since eggs contain significant amounts of fat and cholesterol,

不得寫「有益健康」

and therefore contribute to the

所有可能參照到 「健康」的字眼也必須全數撤除

leading killer in the United States, heart disease.

且慢

The industry can't afford to tell the truth about eggs,

雞蛋真的不健康?

or even the hens that lay them.

雞蛋真的不安全?

The industry crams 5 to 10 birds in cages

誰說的?

the size of a file cabinet their whole lives,

這可是他們的老大 美國農業部說的

but when providing footage to the media

the American Egg Board instructs

"do not show multiple birds in cages-"

"they look too crowded "

"and open us up to activist criticism."

In other words, do not show… the truth.

Not only is the industry barred from saying

eggs are healthy,

they can't even refer to eggs as safe,

"all references to safety must be removed."

because more than a hundred thousand Americans

are salmonella poisoned every year from eggs.

The egg board response to this eggborne epidemic is that

Salmonella is a naturally occurring bacteria.

The egg industry didn't think that should

necessarily be the key message,

fearing "it may be counterproductive"

"by implying there is no avoiding salmonella in eggs"

"aside from avoiding eggs altogether."

That's why the American Egg Board

can't even mention anything but eggs cooked hard and dry.

No soft-boiled, no over-easy, no sunny-side up

because of salmonella.

The American Egg Board's own research showed

that the sunny-side up cooking method

should be considered unsafe.

And because of avian influenza as well, not just salmonella.

In light of bird flu viruses eggs must be cooked firm.

The VP of marketing for the Egg Board complained

to the USDA saying they'd really like to not have to dictate

that yolks are firm.

What about some Washington Post article

saying runny yolks may be safe for everyone

except pregnant women, infants, elderly,

or those with chronic disease?

Turns out that was a misquote—

they can't be considered safe for anyone.

Instead of safe you can call eggs fresh,

the USDA marketing service helpfully suggests.

But you can't call eggs safe,

you cannot say eggs are safe to eat,

can't say they're safe,

can't even mention safety,

can't say they're healthful.

All "references to healthfulness must be deleted" as well.

Wait a second...eggs can't really be called healthy?

Eggs can't even really be called safe?

Says who…

Says the United States Department of Agriculture.