Should Junk Food Carry a Warning Label?
By: Jen Mueller,
SparkPeople Blogger
4/19/2011 10:12 AM
: 122 comments
: 14,641 Views
If you're a label-reader like I am, you know how to spot the foods you should avoid and the ones that can easily be incorporated into a healthy diet. I try to avoid foods that have tons of ingredients on the label, especially when most of them are things I don't even know how to pronounce. But not everyone has the time or interest to investigate what is in the foods they are eating. They take a quick look at the label and if it sounds generally healthy ("made with whole grains", "natural"), then the package goes into their shopping cart. Do you think they'd be less-likely to eat unhealthy junk foods if they came with a warning label?
We've blogged in the past about the proposal to use taxes as a way to discourage people from purchasing unhealthy foods. (Would taxes on junk food promote healthier eating? and Should We Impose an "Obesity Tax" on Soft Drinks? are two examples.) Opponents of this idea say it's not an effective way to curb junk food consumption, because many people are willing to take the financial hit and continue buying the products (or just buy the generic soda instead of name-brand.) A new study in the Journal of Consumer Affairs suggests that warning labels (combined with the tax) are a better way to discourage people from making these purchases.
The study asked consumers to choose between three snacks: a high-fat snack with a warning label, a high-fat snack without a warning and a healthier option. "The researchers found that people responded in one of three ways: One group heeded warning labels, another avoided less healthy snacks and was more sensitive to price when a warning label was present, and a third group was sensitive to price but not to warning labels." Using the warning to tell people the product is unhealthy and that's why it's being taxed was more effective than just a tax alone. "This product is high in fat. It has been taxed due to its less healthy nutritional content,” is an example of one.
I think these warning labels are an interesting idea. Not everyone has the time or interest to read labels as they are quickly trying to get their shopping done after a long day. But seeing a quick disclaimer on the front of a product might make you think twice before deciding to buy.
What do you think?
We've blogged in the past about the proposal to use taxes as a way to discourage people from purchasing unhealthy foods. (Would taxes on junk food promote healthier eating? and Should We Impose an "Obesity Tax" on Soft Drinks? are two examples.) Opponents of this idea say it's not an effective way to curb junk food consumption, because many people are willing to take the financial hit and continue buying the products (or just buy the generic soda instead of name-brand.) A new study in the Journal of Consumer Affairs suggests that warning labels (combined with the tax) are a better way to discourage people from making these purchases.
The study asked consumers to choose between three snacks: a high-fat snack with a warning label, a high-fat snack without a warning and a healthier option. "The researchers found that people responded in one of three ways: One group heeded warning labels, another avoided less healthy snacks and was more sensitive to price when a warning label was present, and a third group was sensitive to price but not to warning labels." Using the warning to tell people the product is unhealthy and that's why it's being taxed was more effective than just a tax alone. "This product is high in fat. It has been taxed due to its less healthy nutritional content,” is an example of one.
I think these warning labels are an interesting idea. Not everyone has the time or interest to read labels as they are quickly trying to get their shopping done after a long day. But seeing a quick disclaimer on the front of a product might make you think twice before deciding to buy.
What do you think?
 You will earn 3 SparkPoints |
NEXT ENTRY > A Festive Easter Dinner Menu
.jpg)
Comments
First, as others have pointed out, people don't pay attention to tobacco and alcohol warnings. Second, many people are very constrained by finances and accessibility in terms of what's available for them to buy.
I think perhaps guidelines in bigger print (the nutritional info is TINY) might be useful but warnings of any kind may tend to demonize those who are overweight. Some health insurance companies already charge more based on BMI and yet most states don't require helmets for motorcyclists and those injuries cost the insurance companies, health care providers, governments and taxpayers a fortune.
There are often downsides to even the best policies and do we trust our legislatures to come up with good policies. - 6/14/2012 9:40:26 PM
If it helped cigarettes, it'll help junk foods. But I think we need to go a step further and require nutrition education in highschool. This is about making healthy, happy people in life and in the workforce. - 5/13/2011 1:00:40 PM
And honestly? I strongly, very strongly doubt that a warning label would be a deterrent to junk food consumption. - 5/8/2011 8:54:43 PM
come one, i can understand regulating/labeling drugs, alchohol, and cigarretts, but food? in this day and age where weightloss is America's Idol and God i've never meat anyone who didn't know an apple was good for you and a snickers was bad. - 4/23/2011 12:42:52 PM
- 4/23/2011 6:08:13 AM
Such taxes are punitive and discriminatory. We need to be able to make choices ourselves; some want to focus on fats, others sugars or carbs, and so on. I wish the labels we have would be more honest, as folks have mentioned, showing all sugars, whatever their names. Any package illustration should not show more than a single serving. I'm just dreaming, lol; nobody will do this without additional regulations and penalties.
I also believe folks in general (and so-called experts) are disregarding emotional issues related to weight, too. Until we address bullying, discrimination, abuse, and other issues that can lead to emotional eating, until we embrace our fellow men and women as lovable just the way they are, we won't conquer the "obesity problem." Just my opinion....
Don't just blame parents, either. My daughter provided a fairly healthy diet to my grandson, and the daycare provider printed out healthy menus she gave the parents. Later we learned that at least 3 days a week, she was instead running errands with the kids in the car, and McD's was actually what she gave the preschoolers! NOT what my daughter practices. My grandson adores veggies, especially broccoli. Needless to say, this caregiver does not watch the kids any more, but it is an example of a healthy diet not being only the parents' responsibility. - 4/21/2011 6:13:23 PM
Warning: Eating this food will cause you to break out in fat all over your body!! Eat with Caution in Very Small Portions. - 4/21/2011 3:16:37 PM
The lobbyists will contribute to warping the rules to the point that a 6-pack of candy bars will be "nutritious" if it has the essence of blueberry and almond crumbs are visible with a microscope.
The education about nutrition has so much stuff to keep track of and a lot of details seem to be conflicting with other guidelines. Its no wonder we give up on it... - 4/21/2011 12:24:02 AM
TerrBear - 4/20/2011 10:39:38 PM
There is more than enough government interference, personal accountability is lost by what seems like the majority of people. Who decides where the line between healthy and unhealthy is? It is easy when you talk about and apple versus a bag of doritos, but gets blurry between different brands of peanut butter, or even the difference between chocolate, 2% and skim milk. And the ongoing debate between natural butter and non-hydrdgenized margarine. There is a ook out there that states a bag of doritos are healthier then a bag of pretzels. All depends what your idea of healthy is excess salt or msg, fat or sugar, natural or manufactured. - 4/20/2011 8:40:14 PM
If this were to work then we could make all of the illegal drugs legal, post warning labels and huge taxes end of the drug problems right? Just like smoking!
- 4/20/2011 4:18:40 PM
Home made ones are harder to resist because they come with no labels and your friends make them for you to eat....
- 4/20/2011 2:31:38 PM
You can still use good, raw ingredients to fix something totally non-nutritious - so should we have to report that we made a cake and had ice cream to the government? Would they require us to send in an additional "bad food" tax with our income tax?
If you are not smart enough to know what's good for you and what's not - that's your responsibility. It's also your responsibility to teach your children what the best choices are in foods.
Regardless of what you teach them, teenagers are going to stuff whatever tastes better and is quick. For many of them, they are so active their bodies metabolize anything - that's why I refer to them as kids. Young goats will even gnaw the labels off of cans - sort of like mammalian roaches.
A number of people have mentioned taxing cigarettes and people still smoke. Why not go back to the original sin tax in America - the tax on alcoholic drinks. It's currently at 100%+, and people still drink themselves into oblivion and even kill other people. At least with junk food you're only harming your own body. - 4/20/2011 2:05:58 PM
No, I just don't see this working. If we're concerned, we learn our bodies need and don't need, and read the labels. And judging from the FDA's monitoring and food guidelines to date, I wouldn't trust the government to accurately label less healthy choices. The FDA already works with industry groups; just imagine the lobbying by companies not to place warning signs on their foods, and the potential lawsuits. It's just not feasible. - 4/20/2011 11:48:41 AM
Obviously, a tax on junk food is not feasible or practical. Have we not already tried that with cigarettes? People still smoke. People still get sick and use the medical system and raise the costs for everybody. If we as a society truely wanted to ban bad things, then we would stop using them. The companies would have stopped producing them years ago and it would no longer be an issue. - 4/20/2011 11:37:09 AM
Seriously, though, the only people who would benefit from warnings already read labels. No one is dumb enough to think Cheetos are healthy (Real cheese! It must be healthy! Bull, no one thinks like that.), or that reduced fat Twinkies are better for you than say a Honey Bun. People who read labels actually care about what they put in their bodies, those who don't read them, don't care. So while they will clearly see what the health detriments of Ding Dongs are, they will buy and devour them, anyway. My obese mother is a perfect example. I have talked to her about label reading and healthy choices, and she still doesn't do it. It's because she pretends to want to do better, when she doesn't actually care (Case in point, I only allow my son to have fruit snacks and dark chocolate for a very occasional candy treat, and the fruit snacks must list fruit juice first on the ingredients list. She sees "Made with fruit juice and assumes it meets my standards and buys it without looking at the label, so I have to politely give them back to her.).
A lot of people who buy processed foods are on a tight budget and incorrectly assume that it is more expensive to cook from scratch than to use processed foods and eat chips instead of vegetables (a pound of carrots is less than a dollar, a one pound bag of chips runs $2-4 and doesn't fill you at all like carrots would. That math doesn't make sense, except maybe that they're not fully thinking about it.). Sure, all the ingredients to make stroganoff may be more expensive than a box of Hamburger Helper plus a pound of beef, but you could make a ton of stroganoff, plus use the leftover ingredients in countless more dishes, so it is actually cheaper in the long run to cook from scratch.
What we need is food education. When Jamie Oliver goes to a school and the children can't identify vegetables, there is clearly an education issue. Adults and children alike need to be taught about nutrition and cooking. There also needs to be education in food budgeting, teaching about seasonal produce, shopping for unit price, and understanding the value of ingredient leftovers (How to use or freeze extra produce, dairy, meat, etc so you don't waste and save money, and utilizing scraps for stocks instead of buying canned stock.), especially since a majority of those suffering from obesity and weight related illness are functioning on limited funds. These classes should be mandatory to receive food stamps and WIC. When I was pregnant, my husband and I had just married, my husband was in school, I was in the process of transferring schools, and no one would hire a pregnant girl, so money was very tight and we got on WIC. While we qualified for Food Stamps, I didn't want them. There was manditory education on breast feeding, but nothing about nutrition and budget cooking. I know from friends who have been on food stamps, they don't offer those classes, either. Since you have to have a very limited income to qualify for those programs, those on these forms of assistance desperately need to learn low cost grocery habits so they can cook healthy meals at home. I had a mother at a daycare I recently worked at who was on food stamps, and bought her kids candies, chips, cookies, and fruity drinks with very little juice with her food stamps card. Just as WIC cards only pay for approved items, the food stamp cards need to not pay for junk food. If the beneficiaries want junk food that bad, they can pay for it themselves, but of my tax money is paying for their food, I want them buying wholesome foods; whole wheat, fresh produce, lean meat, 100% juices and dairy with that money, not processed crap, soda, and all sugar fruit flavored beverages. Those programs are intended to nourish the recipients, not fatten them up with junk. WIC cards and vouchers only allow you to purchase certain items on WICs dime. Food stamps need to do the same. - 4/20/2011 11:11:40 AM
Please Log In To Leave A Comment: Log in now ›