This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American
It’s a tired refrain: “It’s all about consumer choice, we can’t limit choice, the consumer is king.” Every time some pesky public health advocate wants to try to reform the food environment, the industry starts to shriek about limiting choices and taking away people’s freedom. New York City’s attempt to remove “bucket” as an acceptable size for sugary drinks is probably the most prominent example of this playing out, but it happens all the time:
Mountains of research indicate that if nothing is done to change our food environment, obesity and chronic disease will continue to rise, leading to unsustainable burdens on health care systems and economies worldwide.
Health experts respond by attempting to enact policy-level improvements, like adjusting prices of worse-for-you foods to better represent the costs to consumers and society; or enacting limits on marketing practices that push unhealthy foods onto vulnerable populations.
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
But when these policies come to a vote, the industry spends millions on lobbyists who shout: “Consumers need education, not government meddling!” Bordering on religious devotion, this concern for the interests of the well-informed consumer would be almost admirable, were it not so glaringly inconsistent.
There are simple ways to inform consumers about the healthfulness of foods, but the industry tends to resist these, even though research has shown them to be effective and preferred by the consumers themselves.
Yet another study recently showed that a simplified, color-coded food label indicating the healthfulness of a product would benefit consumers. Swiss researchers used eye-tracking technology to compare the efficiency of three different front-of-package (FOP) labels:
1. Traffic-Light (TL) labels contain red, green, or yellow marks to indicate whether a food has high low or moderate levels of ingredients to encourage or avoid. For example, high levels of fiber would get a green label, and high levels of sugar would get a red label.2. The Guidelines of Daily Amounts (GDA) is similar to the Industry’s own Facts-up-Front labels, which display numbers indicating calories, saturated fat, sodium, and sugar, but do not provide guidance as to whether any these amounts are healthful or not.
3. The Nutrition Table was simply a table listing ingredients and their amounts, similar to the nutrition facts labels currently on the backs or sides of packaged foods today, though a much more simplified version.
Participants viewed foods with these different labeling systems and then were asked to rate the healthfulness of the foods. The results indicated that both the GDA and the Traffic Light labels provided more information to consumers, but the TL format required less processing time.