Abstract
This article examines the potential for new front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling initiatives to nudge consumers toward healthier food choices. The libertarian-paternalist approach to policy known as nudge initially developed by Thaler and Sunstein is discussed, with its emphasis on designing spaces (including the space of the food label) to shape the behavior of individuals while not restricting consumer choice or imposing restrictions or penalties on producers. In the context of concerns over diet-related chronic diseases and obesity, new FOP interpretive nutrition labels have been proposed or implemented in an attempt to shift consumer dietary choices, including the Multiple Traffic Light labeling system in the United Kingdom and the Health Star Rating system in Australia. We identify some of the characteristics, the underlying nutritional philosophies, and the limitations of these FOP labeling schemes. We suggest that the potential of these schemes is compromised by the coexistence on the food label of many other forms of nutrition information and food marketing. Some alternative ways of labeling and communicating the nutritional quality of foods are also discussed.
Generated Summary
This journal article examines the potential for new front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling initiatives to nudge consumers toward healthier food choices. The study discusses the libertarian-paternalist approach known as nudge, developed by Thaler and Sunstein, which emphasizes designing spaces (including food labels) to shape behavior. The research identifies the characteristics, underlying nutritional philosophies, and limitations of these FOP labeling schemes, such as the Multiple Traffic Light (MTL) system in the United Kingdom and the Health Star Rating system in Australia. The authors suggest that the potential of these schemes is compromised by the coexistence of other nutrition information and food marketing. The article also explores alternative ways of labeling and communicating the nutritional quality of foods.
Key Findings & Statistics
- The article mentions that in the United States, Australia, and Europe, the food industry has introduced Guideline Daily Amount (GDA) labeling, which typically provides the quantity and percentage daily value (%DV) per serving of sugar, salt, saturated fat, energy, vitamins, and minerals.
- It also states that some food companies are embracing more prominent calorie labeling on the front of the pack, like Coca-Cola’s announcement in 2013.
- The article refers to a study that suggests consumers in an experimental situation primarily used the MTL label to avoid foods with red lights rather than to choose foods with green lights (Scarborough et al. 2015).
- The Australian Health Star Rating (HSR) system, introduced in 2014, awards food products between one-half of a star and up to five stars based on an evaluation of its nutrient profile (Carrad et al. 2015; Maubach, Hoek, and Mather 2014).
- The article points out that in the European Union, a proposal to introduce the MTL scheme was defeated following heavy food industry lobbying, with claims that the food industry spent over one billion euros over many years fighting against it (Swinburn, Swinburn, and Wood 2013).
- In the United States, the Institute of Medicine (2012) has proposed the introduction of a star rating system, but the US Food and Drug Administration has yet to act on these recommendations.
Other Important Findings
- The article discusses how “nudge” strategies, developed by Thaler and Sunstein, are used to shape individuals’ behavior without restricting choice or imposing penalties on producers, by designing spaces (including food labels) to influence people’s decisions.
- The article examines front-of-pack (FOP) nutrition labeling and discusses its role in nudging consumers towards healthier choices.
- It explores the potential for FOP labeling to shift consumer dietary choices, focusing on schemes like the Multiple Traffic Light (MTL) system in the UK and the Health Star Rating system in Australia.
- The article discusses the limitations of interpretive labeling, including its reliance on nutrient-focused approaches, which may be manipulated by food producers and may not fully address the quality of ingredients.
- The study highlights the political aspects of FOP labeling, including the influence of public health experts, food industry interests, and governmental policies.
- The article suggests that the effectiveness of interpretive nutrition labels depends on the context of other influences on food consumption, including other forms of information on and off the label, and the need for a more integrated approach to food and nutrition policy.
Limitations Noted in the Document
- One of the main limitations highlighted is the focus on single nutrients, which can be manipulated by food companies.
- The article notes that the effectiveness of FOP labeling is undermined by the coexistence of various forms of food and nutrition labeling, which can lead to confusion among consumers.
- The voluntary nature of many of these schemes limits their ability to encourage producers to reformulate and improve the quality of products.
- The article mentions that the specific guidance provided by interpretive labels is determined by nutrition experts and based on the dominant paradigms and weight of evidence as to the evaluation of a food’s healthfulness.
- The article also acknowledges the limitations of interpretive schemes, emphasizing that consumers need more assistance in making healthier choices, implicitly acknowledging that the existing back-of-pack, quantified forms of information are ineffective or inadequate.
Conclusion
The article emphasizes that the design and regulation of these schemes and the architecture of the food label are all important, and that the focus on nutrients can be manipulated by food producers. “If to nudge means to influence consumer choices without imposing restrictions or economic penalties on producers of poor quality foods and on their products, then it is doubtful that labeling will in itself significantly shift consumer behavior, no matter how thoughtfully the label is designed,” the authors write. The article underscores the necessity of a holistic approach to food and nutrition policy, aligning labeling regulations with policies that address nutritional composition, availability, cost, and advertising of foods. “Ultimately what is required is an integrated approach to food and nutrition policy whereby the various dimensions of nutrition labeling regulations and approaches are aligned, and these are in turn aligned with policies addressing the nutritional composition,” the authors conclude. It suggests that a multi-faceted approach, that includes not only the design of labels, but also a focus on quality of ingredients, and source would be ideal. The article suggests that public health-driven nudges can be more effective if they reduce or prohibit the use of nutrient-content and health claims.