What Google's Famous Cafeterias Can Teach Us About Health

A visit to the tech giant's headquarters reveals smart nutrition labeling and vending machines where healthier items are cheaper

I'm just back from judging Google's first Science Fair for kids 13 to 18 at its corporate headquarters in California (yes, those are tomatoes growing in the foreground).

Google's famous food program

Why famous? It is:

Available 24/7
Totally free
Varied and delicious
Designed to promote health as well as environmental values (local, organic, sustainable)

On this last point, the recycling program is comprehensive and the campus is planted with organic vegetables, free for the picking:

But what about the "freshman 15″?

If free food is available 24/7, isn't Google creating a classic "obesogenic" environment? Do new Google employees gain weight?

Indeed, they do, and this creates a dilemma for the food team. I met with Joe Marcus, Google's food program manager, and executive chef Scott Giambastiani. Free and very good food, they explain, is an important recruiting perk for Google. Employees learn to manage it. And those who are eating healthy food for the first time in their lives find that they actually lose weight.

Google's food labeling program

Google labels its snacks, drinks, and the foods prepared in its 25 or so cafeterias with traffic lights: green (eat anytime), yellow (once in a while), or red (not often, please). It bases the decisions about which food goes where on the Harvard School of Public Health's healthy eating pyramid. It labels foods at the top of the Harvard pyramid red, the ones in the middle yellow, and those at the bottom green.

In theory this makes sense as a starting point. In practice, it tends to seem a bit like nutritionism--reducing the value of the foods to a few key nutrients.

The difficulties are most evident in the snack foods, freely available from kiosks all over the campus. Products are displayed on shelves labeled red, yellow, or green. For example:

Snack food	Kcal	Fat, g	Sodium, mg	Sugar, g	Fiber, g	Color code

Sun Chips, 1.5 oz	210	10	180	3	4	GREEN
Lentil Chips,1 oz	110	3	170	1	3	YELLOW
Walnuts, 0.8 oz	150	15	0	1	2	YELLOW
Luau BBQ Chips, 1.5 oz	210	14	158	2	1	RED

Note: the weights of the packages are not the same, so the amounts are not really comparable, but the ranking scheme seems to give most credit for fiber.

As for these and the foods cooked in cafeterias, Google uses other strategies to promote healthier choices. It:

Puts the healthiest products at eye level
Uses small plates
Tries to include vegetables in everything
Makes healthier options available at all times
Uses the smallest sizes of snack foods (packages of two Oreos, rather than six)
Makes it easy to be physically active (Google bicycles!)

The only place on the campus where employees pay for food is from a vending machine. The pricing strategy is based on nutrient content, again according to the Harvard pyramid plan. For the vended products, you pay:

one cent per gram of sugar
two cents per gram of fat
four cents per gram of saturated fat
one dollar per gram of trans fat

On this basis, Quaker Chewy Bars are 15 cents each, Famous Amos cookies are 55 cents, and an enormous Ghirardelli chocolate bar is $4.25. Weights don't count and neither do calories. The machine is not run by Google. Whoever does it has a sense of humor.

Impressive, all this. Not every company can feed its nearly 30,000 employees like this but every company can adopt some of these strategies. It might save them some health care costs, if nothing else.

This post also appears on Food Politics.
Images: Brett L./flickr, Marion Nestle

About the Author

Marion Nestle is a professor in the Department of Nutrition, Food Studies, and Public Health at New York University. She is the author of Food Politics, Safe Food, What to Eat, and Pet Food Politics.

The show, this season, with exploitative plotlines that treat racism as entertainment, is becoming harder and harder to defend.

This post reveals minor plot points for The Bachelorette Season 13 Episode 6.

A few years ago, in response to a combination of scientific studies, legal cases, and human tragedies, commentators began to question the morality of watching American football. We’d always known the sport was an especially dangerous one to play—that, indeed, is part of its brute appeal—but now there was undeniable evidence of that brutality, rendered in statistic and awful anecdote. To watch the violence play out, it became increasingly clear, was to be in some way complicit in it—to cast a silent vote, not with one’s pocketbook but with one’s attention, in favor of all that violence continuing.

The Bachelorette, of course, depicts a sport only in the loosest sense; the show is very rarely violent in the literal sense of the term. And yet it has recently adopted the same rough outlines that football acquired a few years before: The show, always questionable, has become in its latest season more troubling than it has even been before. Recent episodes of the long-running ABC show have laid bare just how craven and exploitative its producers have become. Problems that have long been simmering in its world have come to a boil. Watching it has become harder and harder to enjoy—and, like that other blood sport, harder and harder to defend.