Apples vs. Apple Jacks

How marketing minimizes the big differences among substances.

Reviewed by Gary Drevitch

Key points

• Scrutinizing food labels has become increasingly important.
• Marketing tactics are being used to enhance the appeal and appearance of food and other products.
• Although substances or products may be grouped within the same category, their impact can be widely different.

Recently, I have been scrutinizing nutrition and supplement labels more than I normally do. Twenty years ago, most of us looked at food labels just to be more mindful of calorie counts or sodium levels, but I rarely felt the need to scrutinize them. Back then, you pretty much knew what you were getting and the ingredient list was generally what you would expect to find in the product if you were going to make it at home. But by now, these ingredient lists have grown longer and longer, and it has become increasingly important to pay close attention to them.

There has been more focus and awareness in the media lately on additives and other ingredients that are permitted in foods in the U.S. but banned in countries like the UK. There are many reasons why companies use these additives in their products—increasing shelf life, cutting costs, etc. But a big reason we are seeing these ingredient lists grow is that more and more sweeteners are being added to products to mask the taste of other additives, dyes, emulsifiers, etc., and to try to satisfy our increasing demand for foods to taste sweet and be palatable.

Perhaps to minimize the obvious health risks that come along with adding all of these sweeteners to products, food companies may attempt to fool us into thinking that a product is healthy or “better” for us in some way because it is similar to real food. For example, labeling foods with terms like "organic" or "natural" or using imagery of fruits and vegetables on packaging can lead consumers to perceive them as healthier, even if they contain high amounts of added sugar or saturated fats. We also see this strategy in the naming of products. For example, “dried apples” is the 19th ingredient found in Apple Jacks[1] cereal. Nonetheless, the marketers chose to call the cereal Apple Jacks over Sugar Jacks—although sugar is the first ingredient.

Apples aren’t Apple Jacks, and the product barely contains apples, but the marketing tactics are well thought out. Companies often take advantage of the classic psychological phenomenon known as the halo effect. We have a cognitive bias in which our perception of one positive attribute (like the word "apple," which we associate with health) influences our overall impression of a product, even if the product itself may not be inherently healthy. This mental shortcut occurs because we tend to extend positive feelings about a single trait (such as an association with healthy food) to the entire product, often without critically analyzing other aspects, such as nutritional content.

Words undoubtedly matter when it comes to marketing. Drawing spurious connections between substances that are similar in a few ways but different in other more major ways can be dangerous. Unfortunately, marketing tactics like this are regularly employed within the food industry and in other industries as well.

Consider alcohol. Not all alcohol products are the same in terms of how they will affect those who consume them. Drinking a shot of vodka will produce a very different effect than drinking a can of light beer, as it may contain twice as much alcohol. Both products are grouped under the umbrella term of “alcoholic beverages"; however, they differ in how they are processed in the body and how much impairment they can produce.

Let’s look at another example of a substance that is becoming more widely used. Kratom (Mitragyna speciosa) is a plant native to Southeast Asia, traditionally used for both its stimulant and sedative properties, depending on the dosage. All food products are not created equal, all neither are all kratom products. The leaves of the plant contain several active alkaloids—the most abundant being mitragynine. A degradation product of mitragynine that appears post-harvest is 7-hydroxymitragynine (7-OH). Mitragynine is a partial agonist at μ-opioid receptors, which does not cause respiratory depression. However, 7-OH is more potent at opioid receptors, which causes respiratory depression and has an increased abuse potential (Adkins et al., 2011).

The pharmacology of mitragynine and 7-OH highlight how the two are related but also underscores their differences. While mitragynine is present in larger quantities in harvested kratom leaves, it is a weaker μ-opioid receptor agonist compared to 7-OH. Mitragynine undergoes metabolic conversion in the liver where a portion is converted into 7-OH, which has much stronger analgesic and opioid-like effects (Hemby et al., 2019). In a recent clinical study, after taking a single dose of kratom, the amount of 7-OH compared to the main compound mitragynine ranged from 0.20 to 0.31. This means that between 20 and 31% was metabolized to 7-OH. However, after multiple doses, the ratio decreased to between 0.15 and 0.21—meaning the body produced relatively less of the metabolite over time (Huestis et al., 2024). Although 7-OH is present in much smaller amounts in the harvested leaf, it is approximately 13 times more potent than morphine in terms of its affinity for the μ-opioid receptor. This significant difference in potency makes 7-OH more likely to be associated with risks of dependence and potential adverse effects, such as respiratory depression, especially in concentrated or synthetic forms (Kruegel & Grundmann, 2018).

Given these differences, using harvested leaf and isolated 7-OH should not be considered the same and consumers should be sure to find out exactly what they are obtaining. The kratom leaf contains a complex mixture of alkaloids that may work synergistically by moderating each other’s effects—leading to a different risk profile than alkaloids, like 7-OH, taken in isolation. The potency of 7-OH, particularly when isolated or synthetically enhanced, raises concerns about safety and dependence that are not as prominent with traditional kratom leaf consumption. While both substances originate from the same plant, their distinct chemical and pharmacological properties warrant different considerations in terms of their effects, risks, and regulatory status (Henningfield et al., 2018). What differentiates substances, even when they are in the same drug class, is the complex molecular makeup of the substance—which can differ slightly or significantly. As discussed above, the alkaloids found in the leaves of the kratom plant are a prime example of this. 7-OH has a very potent ability to produce rewards, similar to traditional opioids, like morphine. This alkaloid is very different from the mitragynine found in kratom leaf because it is a powerful reinforcer at the μ-opioid receptors, making 7-OH a substance that one is much more likely to develop dependency on.

In conclusion, whatever substance we are consuming, food or otherwise, we need to be aware of the fact that small differences in ingredients can translate into very large differences in terms of how the product can affect us—both physically and psychologically. We need to scrutinize labels and bring awareness to the fact that marketing tactics are being used everywhere we turn in an attempt to lump products that are different into categories that are safer or healthier.