My Exchange with Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.:

The following is the exchange I have had with Atkins Inc. over the last week. I thought I would share it here as a heads-up for anyone who may be using Atkins products and for insight into the psychopathic undercurrent of the corporate mind-set.

===================================>

09/10/12

To the People Behind the Atkins Trademark,

I have been meaning to pen this email for quite some time. Now that Sharon Osbourne is backing your product well, suffice it to say, this was the final straw and the catalyst behind this email.

I adhered to the Atkins diet from 2004-2010 and consumed your product line with much success. However, after a diagnosis of kidney stones (which, based on research into the formation of kidney stones, was probably caused from my mass consumption of un-fermented and most likely GMO soy within your product line), and upon further research into all the health harming ingredients of the Atkins product line, I have since quit purchasing your line of products. In other words, weight loss via the Atkins product line is not worth my long term health. With that said, I have urged friends and family to also quit purchasing your products. (Note: No need to worry about any lawsuit as I know proving my health was harmed via the use of your product line would be difficult and furthermore, the legal system is set up to protect large corporations such as yourselves.)

Based on my research into the aforementioned health harming ingredients Atkins incorporates into their products, it appears to me that Atkins cares more about profits than people. Furthermore, Atkins preys on people's need to lose weight or "get healthy" to line its own pockets. Also, to get Sharon Osbourne or any other celebrity on board to back your product does not motivate me into purchasing your product. As a critical thinker, I am not easily razzle-dazzled by celebrities or by anything they say or do, because IMO they are just puppets for profit. If a celebrity backs your product, for me it says a lot about them; they are either uneducated about the health harming ingredients in your product line or lying about their consumption of your products - as in, they are only endorsing (for their own personal profit) but not consuming that which they endorse.

Though the following idea/statement may not have Atkins' considerable "bottom line" in mind and production costs may rise thereby transferring the costs to the consumer, it is my hope that it does beseech the conscience of those people behind the Atkins trademark: If Atkins ever decides to put people before profits, as I am sure was the original intent of Dr. Atkins, and create a product line that does not use soy (or any other GMO ingredients), health harming artificial sweeteners, and/or any other health harming ingredients, I will reconsider purchasing and promoting Atkins products once again.

Sincerely,
Robin


===================================>


09/13/12

Robin,

The health and well-being of our customers is always our major concern. Scientists at Atkins are continuously monitoring the peer reviewed scientific literature on the safety and efficacy of all the ingredients used in Atkins products. We are aware of the very few negative articles on artificial sweeteners. These articles are far from conclusive.

A main goal of The Atkins Nutritional Approach is to stabilize blood sugar (glucose) and insulin levels through the restriction of carbohydrates. Natural sweetening or Sugar is a carbohydrate, so it is strictly limited. The prudent, moderate use of artificial sweeteners is acceptable. Some people experience negative reactions to certain sweeteners, and the risk increases with the amount used. With all artificial sweeteners, the less used, usually the better. That is why we recommend a 3 packet daily limitation which is simply a precaution for those that are likely to react negatively.

The safety of artificial sweeteners is well documented in scientific studies conducted over a 20-year period. In addition, sucralose and, specifically, the safety data on sucralose, has been reviewed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other national regulatory agencies, as well as by international health authorities such as the World Health Organization, and found to be safe for use by all consumers, including children, pregnant women and people with diabetes.

Sharon Osbourne is an established business woman and well-known TV personality, who has conquered many of life’s challenges both behind the scenes and in front of the cameras.

After getting to know her, we felt that her story was one that a lot of women could relate to as she strives to improve her health. With her candid personality and energy, Sharon is genuinely excited about her success on Atkins and looks forward to sharing her story with her viewers and her fans.

While not everyone may agree, we look forward to working with Sharon to inspire all dieters to achieve a fulfilling, healthy lifestyle with Atkins.

Regards,
Cindy Burk
Call Center Manager
Atkins Nutritionals Inc.
1-888-5-ATKINS(285467)
contactus@atkins.com
www.atkins.com


===================================>


09/13/12

Cindy,

Though this reply, like my last email, will probably fall on deaf ears, write it I must.

What a load of delusional, misleading PR rhetoric. Peer reviewed scientific literature, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organization, as trusted sources, really??? Who do you think you are fooling here, you or me?

Throughout your reply you never once address the ONE ingredient that makes up the BULK of most your products which is GMO SOY. Instead you chose to focus on artificial sweeteners and supporting its use with the questionable backing of the aforementioned and false statements such as natural sweetening is a carbohydrate. While I will agree that a natural sweetening such as sugar is a carbohydrate, it is misleading to say, "natural sweetening is a carbohydrate" which implies ALL natural sweetenings are carbohydrates. What about Stevia and the like???

To address the topic of Sharon Osbourne and your statement, "After getting to know her...", do really think that I think a 'call center manager' at Atkins had the opportunity to sit down and get to know Ms. Osbourne? Another delusional and misleading statement meant to impress the reader and perhaps convince the writer of a "up close and personal feel". To restate what I stated in my previous email; I am not impressed by celebrities and feel that they are, for the most part, puppets for profit. Furthermore, either Ms. Osbourne is unaware of the health harming ingredients in your products, mainly GMO SOY, or she is endorsing your products (for her own personal profit) without consuming your products.

Let us get one thing straight here, I wrote the previous email to state my concerns and re-actions in relation to those concerns, i.e. I no longer purchase nor promote Atkins products because of health harming ingredients found in your products, and your 'delusional, misleading PR rhetoric' reply basically 'laughs in the face' of those concerns. Furthermore, your reply really speaks to the lack of conscience within Atkins Inc. and also to Atkins overall view of its consumers.

I am sure that I am not the only one with these concerns or the only one who has brought forth these concerns. Your 'delusional, misleading PR rhetoric' reply states to me that these consumer concerns are of no concern/consequence and do not weigh on the conscience of those behind the Atkins trademark. In short:

Profits BEFORE people, for which there is NO appeal to conscience because there is no conscience to appeal to.

Enjoy your GMO soy, your paycheck, and cheers to you sleeping well at night.

Sincerely,
Robin
 
Robin, I'm curious as to what you were hoping to accomplish with this exchange? The Atkins company is a processed food conglomerate. Even if they were to use pristine organic ingredient, no artificial sweeteners or GMOs, there would still be absolutely nothing in the entire product line worth eating. Of course it made you sick - all processed food will make you sick. I don't really see what arguing with a customer service rep about this is going to accomplish. It's certainly not going to be escalated to anyone in the company who could actually do anything about it (and even if it was, it would be extremely naive to think anything would change). Essentially, as far as I can tell, you're just giving this rep a bad day.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this :)
 
dugdeep said:
Robin, I'm curious as to what you were hoping to accomplish with this exchange? The Atkins company is a processed food conglomerate. Even if they were to use pristine organic ingredient, no artificial sweeteners or GMOs, there would still be absolutely nothing in the entire product line worth eating. Of course it made you sick - all processed food will make you sick. I don't really see what arguing with a customer service rep about this is going to accomplish. It's certainly not going to be escalated to anyone in the company who could actually do anything about it (and even if it was, it would be extremely naive to think anything would change). Essentially, as far as I can tell, you're just giving this rep a bad day.

Speaking the truth is important, and we all have to make our own choice about when, where, and how we will do that. This is necessary because A the human race is in dire need of knowledge (truth) right now, and B the world we live in simply doesn't allow one to be truthful all the time, to everyone. Not without consequences. The decision of when and how should be based on thoughtful consideration, and needs to take into account a risk-cost-benefit analysis. The 'return' in this case is a growth of creative forces in the world. As an example, it makes no sense to risk your SE to say something to someone you are pretty sure they don't want to hear to begin with.

It would be naive to expect them to actually change their product line, much less their thinking. But that doesn't mean something doesn't change, that a seed is not planted in someone's mind. I think for just about everyone here on this forum, this is how it has worked. Through the course of our lives, exposure to certain information and experiences built up to a point that has lead us here.

The question is, is that what Robins message was ever really about?

Robin to me it looks like your emotional center was running the show. I think you're pissed because their crappy product made you sick, and that you were gullible enough to ever try it. You said at the beginning of that email it would likely fall on deaf ears. Well, you did a pretty good job of making sure that happened. That message comes off as combative, right off the bat. You basically call her a liar, and probably sound like some whack-job almost laughing out loud at the notion that nationally accepted scientific institutes and sources should not be trusted. Consider your audience. And what's with all of the extra punctuation marks. Are you yelling? Everything you said taken as a whole, that's pretty much what it sounds like.

I see only one thing your message message could ever accomplish. The venting of your frustration onto another person.
 
ignis.intimus said:
The question is, is that what Robins message was ever really about?

Robin to me it looks like your emotional center was running the show. I think you're pissed because their crappy product made you sick, and that you were gullible enough to ever try it. You said at the beginning of that email it would likely fall on deaf ears. Well, you did a pretty good job of making sure that happened. That message comes off as combative, right off the bat. You basically call her a liar, and probably sound like some whack-job almost laughing out loud at the notion that nationally accepted scientific institutes and sources should not be trusted. Consider your audience. And what's with all of the extra punctuation marks. Are you yelling? Everything you said taken as a whole, that's pretty much what it sounds like.

I see only one thing your message message could ever accomplish. The venting of your frustration onto another person.

I agree. Obviously they promote crap and tell people it's safe--standard industry practice, which is why thinking people should never buy into industry food products (at least not without doing the necessary research, if they want to be healthy). They didn't abridge your free will at any time--it was your choice to consume the 'foods' that they marketed.

Robin said:
To address the topic of Sharon Osbourne and your statement, "After getting to know her...", do really think that I think a 'call center manager' at Atkins had the opportunity to sit down and get to know Ms. Osbourne?

As someone who does support work (tech support), this stands out to me. She's a call center manager--aka, has no say in any aspects of production, marketing, etc. She may even hate what they make, but needs the money to provide for herself and possibly her family. You can't expect that she has any influence over their products and so venting at her doesn't actually solve anything. I and my other support workers get this at times (rarely enough though, fortunately--many people are surprisingly polite and considerate) and for some things there's nothing that we can do but create tickets for bugs and features, nag the developers, or refund their money, basically. We can do our job when people are angry or rude or accusatory, etc, but it makes it more difficult for us and serves them worse (who wants to deal with the angry rude customer?).

To me, this message to Atkins sounds like it really was for you and internally considerate. If it was written as an article and perhaps posted on SOTT, then it would be a very different situation.

Trying to wake those who want to remain sleeping isn't externally considerate and really is just a waste of time and energy for everyone.
 
dugdeep said:
Robin, I'm curious as to what you were hoping to accomplish with this exchange? The Atkins company is a processed food conglomerate. Even if they were to use pristine organic ingredient, no artificial sweeteners or GMOs, there would still be absolutely nothing in the entire product line worth eating. Of course it made you sick - all processed food will make you sick. I don't really see what arguing with a customer service rep about this is going to accomplish. It's certainly not going to be escalated to anyone in the company who could actually do anything about it (and even if it was, it would be extremely naive to think anything would change). Essentially, as far as I can tell, you're just giving this rep a bad day.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this :)

No you are not "wrong on this", dugdeep...

I knew starting an exchange with Atkins would not accomplish anything nor did I naively think that anything would change, but I felt compelled to vent/write an email just the same.

When I received the reply email from Atkins today, it just made my head spin round ... it's the same ole dog and pony show. Perhaps the motivation behind this fruitless exchange, especially my reply to their reply, is rooted in what I am currently experiencing via my fiance here on the home-front which concerns his battle with the corporate mind-set of the hospital he is currently working for, and also touches on my own experiences with hospitals. Long story short, despite the hospital's PR spin, "patient safety" is not at the top of their list, furthermore I am not really sure it's even on their list.

Perhaps another motivator behind my original email was the blind trust I had in the Atkins product line back then, a trust that their PR team still spins and nurtures to garner more new unwitting consumers. I am disappointed in myself because I should have known better, and angry at them because they did know better. Clearly not everyone knows that "all processed food will make you sick", as I did not fully understand the repercussions back then ... I do now, and I am just a bit mad about it, therefore I put it in writing and sent it out into cyber space.

As far as knowing that Atkins products or any other processed products would make me sick, well frankly I did not fully realize that until a few years ago while doing research to improve my overall health. Hence the reason why the original email had been 'a long time coming'.

In light of what you have written, I guess my email exchange could be seen as simply self-serving, and the end result or accomplishment as only succeeding in "giving [a] rep a bad day".
 
I think Foxx is right to bring up the idea of internal versus external consideration. In this instance, you needed to vent and you were going to do it no matter who you had to dump on. This is internal considering; not seeing past your own needs and desires to the recipient of your ire. External consideration would have taken into account that the person on the other end really has nothing to do with what you're upset about, nor do they have the power to change anything (not really).

Foxx also had a good idea for how you could redirect your emotions to a more externally considerate, and likely more effective, outlet. Writing an article for SOTT or even your own blog would serve to not only get your feelings out, but would present the facts of the situation to a potentially much wider audience (not a customer service rep who is more or less trapped into hearing you rant, and is likely the least receptive person you could choose to 'enlighten'). In fact, this is an avenue that could actually incite change - if an article becomes popular enough to ruffle the feathers of the corporate food conglomerate, who knows what could happen?

FWIW :)
 
Foxx and ignis.intimus ... from both of your replies, I guess this situation could be summed up as a lesson in internal and external considering, energy conservation, and aligning with the creative force. I have been reading up on internal and external considering as of late and there is clearly a lot of nuances I have yet to grasp, let alone implement.

ignis.intimus ... you are absolutely right, my emotional center was running the show.

Thank you all for the feedback ... there is a lot here to reflect on.
 
Robin, maybe you can write your experience with the Atkins diet in a blog so that more people become aware and you can redirect the frustration. If you share here a link I'll be sharing it too.
 
I read your exchange yesterday, and something about it irked me a little - I was not exactly sure what it was then, but after thinking about it some more I think I both picked up on your frustration, but also put myself in the position of the brow-beaten rep who was just doing their job and felt their frustration. Regardless of whether you may have planted a seed in the mind of any of the company's reps, they will unfortunately have to follow the same procedures and reply with more processed garbage.

I was wondering if perhaps it would have been of more benefit to include evidence of research in support of the points you had made regarding the harmful effects of the ingrediants they were using. Simply saying they are wrong and that there is evidence they are wrong, won't be as effective as including perhaps links to or excerpts from that evidence.

Perhaps if you had started out with the intention of helping them via providing access or showing them the research conducted to support your points - you may have come out feeling more fulfilled that you had tried your best at maybe sharing some accurate information that may filter it's way through the company; rather than feeling as though you had beat your head against their brick wall facade.

Of course they probably would have sent the same responses - but that customer rep may have read that research and come to their own conclusions about the products they were representing rather than feeling as though they were simply responding to an angry consumer =)
 
ignis.intimus said:
Robin to me it looks like your emotional center was running the show. I think you're pissed because their crappy product made you sick, and that you were gullible enough to ever try it. You said at the beginning of that email it would likely fall on deaf ears. Well, you did a pretty good job of making sure that happened. That message comes off as combative, right off the bat. You basically call her a liar, and probably sound like some whack-job almost laughing out loud at the notion that nationally accepted scientific institutes and sources should not be trusted. Consider your audience. And what's with all of the extra punctuation marks. Are you yelling? Everything you said taken as a whole, that's pretty much what it sounds like.

I see only one thing your message message could ever accomplish. The venting of your frustration onto another person.

Now that I have a bit more time this morning, I would like to address some of the feedback I received yesterday in a more thorough manner.

Thinking about the statement in bold above, I am reminded of a time in my past (1991-92?) when I attended a party with my brother. Being that it was so many years ago, I do not remember the details fully but it went something like this: My brother and I were sitting and talking with the other people in attendance when a girl came up to my brother and started to talk to him. I could hear parts of this conversation while I was talking with others and I got the impression that this girl was seeking to lure my brother into her web. After she walked away, I started to ask my brother questions about her and gave him my opinion, which was I felt she was just setting him up to use him up. I then got up to use the restroom and when I returned my brother was out in the car waiting for me. I went out to the car to ask him why he was sitting there and he told me he wanted to leave. I then asked him why he wanted to leave, and his reply was that I was argumentative/combatant in my questioning and opinions concerning the girl who had talked to him. My response to his statement was, as his older sister (by 2yrs) I felt that it was my "job" to look out after him. With that said, we left the party and never spoke of this situation again.

Now it could be that part of this whole scenario was that I inadvertently thwarted my brother's "game plan", but for me this situation still sticks out in my mind like some kind of mile marker even though it happened so many years ago. Furthermore, in light of all that I have read since discovering Cassiopaea.org, this forum, and the feedback I have received, I can now view the preceding exchange with a fresh new set of eyes, and it boils down to acting in a mechanical fashion (I am his big sister, I have always protected him and will continue to do so without thought/mechanically). It also boils down to internal vs. external considering.

With that said, being mechanically combative/argumentative is a program I need to work on along with consciously/objectively reflecting on my internal considering and figuring out how to redirect this into external considering in order to align with the creative principle.
 
dugdeep said:
I think Foxx is right to bring up the idea of internal versus external consideration. In this instance, you needed to vent and you were going to do it no matter who you had to dump on. This is internal considering; not seeing past your own needs and desires to the recipient of your ire. External consideration would have taken into account that the person on the other end really has nothing to do with what you're upset about, nor do they have the power to change anything (not really).

Foxx also had a good idea for how you could redirect your emotions to a more externally considerate, and likely more effective, outlet. Writing an article for SOTT or even your own blog would serve to not only get your feelings out, but would present the facts of the situation to a potentially much wider audience (not a customer service rep who is more or less trapped into hearing you rant, and is likely the least receptive person you could choose to 'enlighten'). In fact, this is an avenue that could actually incite change - if an article becomes popular enough to ruffle the feathers of the corporate food conglomerate, who knows what could happen?

FWIW :)

The idea to redirect my emotions in such a way that they are more externally considerate therefore more effective is an excellent one ... I will take this feedback under serious consideration, possibly for this exchange and for sure concerning any future exchanges I may have.

Soluna said:
I read your exchange yesterday, and something about it irked me a little - I was not exactly sure what it was then, but after thinking about it some more I think I both picked up on your frustration, but also put myself in the position of the brow-beaten rep who was just doing their job and felt their frustration. Regardless of whether you may have planted a seed in the mind of any of the company's reps, they will unfortunately have to follow the same procedures and reply with more processed garbage.

I was wondering if perhaps it would have been of more benefit to include evidence of research in support of the points you had made regarding the harmful effects of the ingrediants they were using. Simply saying they are wrong and that there is evidence they are wrong, won't be as effective as including perhaps links to or excerpts from that evidence.

Perhaps if you had started out with the intention of helping them via providing access or showing them the research conducted to support your points - you may have come out feeling more fulfilled that you had tried your best at maybe sharing some accurate information that may filter it's way through the company; rather than feeling as though you had beat your head against their brick wall facade.

Of course they probably would have sent the same responses - but that customer rep may have read that research and come to their own conclusions about the products they were representing rather than feeling as though they were simply responding to an angry consumer =)

Soluna, between placing yourself into the shoes of the call center rep and what Foxx conveyed about his experience as a support tech, I now have a clearer picture from the possible perspective of the Atkins call center rep I had the exchange with. Your points/advice concerning how it might have been more beneficial if I had provided supporting evidence thereby "helping" instead of venting are very valid. I will keep your advice in mind for any future exchanges.
 
Ana said:
Robin, maybe you can write your experience with the Atkins diet in a blog so that more people become aware and you can redirect the frustration. If you share here a link I'll be sharing it too.

Ana, if I do decide to flesh this exchange out and post it online, I will most definitely post the link here. However, right now I am not sure of how to go about fleshing this particular exchange out so as to be more aligned with the creative force, for it has only been in the past few years, the last year specifically, that I have gained the tools needed (thanks to all the work Laura and the Cass group have done, and continues to do) to start to work on myself in a more productive, objective and truthful manner.
 
Back
Top Bottom