Blog

Consumer sovereignty vs. scientific integrity

This post by Olga Khazan at Atlantic.com highlights some recent food company decisions to remove ingredients of concern to certain consumers.  Yet, the best science we have available suggests these same ingredients are perfectly safe.

Examples mentioned in the story include announcements that Diet Pepsi is removing aspartame, Ben and Jerry's and Chipotle are removing GMOs (the former company's decision is a bit ironic given that they're essentially selling frozen fat with sugar; the later is duplicitous since  they're still selling sodas and cheese that will contain GMOs), Pepsi dropping high fructose corn syrup in some of their drinks, and Clif's Luna Bars going gluten-free.  To that we could add a long list of others such as Cheerios dropping GMOs, many milk brands years ago dropping rBST, etc.  

It's difficult to know what to make of these moves.  On the one hand, we ought to champion consumer freedom and sovereignty.   Whatever one might think about the "power" of Big Food, these examples clearly show food companies willing to bend over backwards to meet customer demands.  That, in principle, is a good thing.  

The darker side of the story is that many consumers have beliefs about food ingredients that don't comport with the best scientific information we have available.  As a result, food companies are making a variety of cost-increasing changes that only convey perceived (but not real) health benefits to consumers.  

The longer-run potential problem for food companies is that they may inadvertently be fostering a climate of distrust.  Rather than creatively defending use of ingredient X and taking the opportunity to talk about the science, their moves come across as an admission of some sort of guilt:  Oh, you caught us!  You found out we use X.  Now, we'll now remove it.  All the while, we'll donate millions to causes that promote X or prevent labeling of X, while offering brands that promote the absence of X.  It's little wonder people get confused, lose trust, and question integrity.  

I'm not sure there is an easy answer to this conundrum.  In a competitive environment, I'm not sure I'd expect (or shareholders would expect) one food company to try to make a principled stand for ingredient X while their competitor is stealing market share by advertising "no-X".  On the other hand, I'd like consumers to make more informed decisions, but I'm not all that sure "education" has much impact or that, at least for many middle- to upper-income consumers, that given the price of food they have much economic incentive to adjust their prior beliefs.  

Faced with the conundrum, I suspect some  people would advocate for some sort of policy (i.e., ban ingredient X or prevent claims like "no-X"), but I don't think that's the right answer.  Despite my frustration, I suspect the marketplace will work it out in a messy way.  Some companies will adopt "no-X", will incur higher costs than their consumers are willing to pay, and will go out of business or go back to X. Some companies that are seen as lacking integrity will lose market share. Some consumers will pay more for "no-X" only later to find out it wasn't worth it, and switch back.  Maybe the scientists wind up being wrong and some consumers avoided X for good reason, and all companies drop X.  The feature of the marketplace, dynamism, that is, at times, frustrating is also the key to ultimately solving  some of those same frustrations.  

Impotence or Death?

Last week I was in Italy teaching a short course and speaking at a conference.  At the conference, I attended a session where the author described an an experiment on alcohol warning labels.  He had people choose between different bottles of wine that had different warning labels.

I thought this was a bit of a strange experiment because once you've seen one bottle with a warning label, doesn't it tell you something about all the bottles?  When I voiced this concern, my friend Maurizio Canavari pointed out that in Italy, different cigarette packages have different warning labels (apparently determined at random).

He sent me this picture yesterday, which reminds me of the joke he told me after the session.  A man walks into a tobacco shop and asks for a pack.  On his way out, he notices the warning label on the pack says that smoking may cause problems in the bedroom (e.g., see the above label "Il fumo riduce la fertilita").  He goes back in and hands the pack back to the shop owner and says: I'll take the one that just kills you.

Seriously, I wonder about the effectiveness of spreading information out over multiple packs vs. trying to cram it all on one.  And, I do wonder if people are more/less likely to pick packs with certain labels despite the fact that the labels warn about smoking in general and not about the effects of one particular pack or brand over another.

 

Should dietitians endorse specific brands?

There seems to be a bit of a storm over this piece in the New York Times related to the decision of groups affiliated with the the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics to allow a “Kids Eat Right”  label from the association on Kraft cheese slices (thanks to Kevin Klatt for the pointer).  

I have a few mixed thoughts on this one.   

In general, it seems like a bad idea for an organization that aims to disseminate unbiased information to endorse specific products or companies (or specific policies for that matter), regardless of whether it's Tom's organic asparagus or Kraft cheese slices.  I recognize that, in principle, the label is not an endorsement of the product, but rather an acknowledgement of a contribution to the Kids Eat Right campaign, but that's probably a distinction without a difference to most food shoppers who see the label.

On the other hand, there seems to be a FoodBabe element to the discussions surrounding all this in the sense that there's a lot of hand wringing over an "evil" processed food.  Because the slices are a processed food it must - defacto - be bad, as is any company that makes it.  But, the most evil ingredient listed in the story - "milk protein concentrate" - is about as benign as they come.  I'm not a nutritionist, but seems to me we should be more interested in overall dietary patterns rather than specific foods.

It's little wonder that my recent survey showed little trust in dietary recommendations.  News stories often hype results from eat-that-no-don't-eat-that studies that shouldn't be used to make causal claims.  That changing dietary advice, coupled with a sometimes superior attitude about what people should be eating regardless of cost or taste often turns people off.  Throw all that on top of the large number of booksellers hocking specific diets that claim to cure all our ills, and you've got a recipe for distrust 

Finally, the NYT story mentions the following:

“Over the last few years, the academy been criticized from some of its members and health advocates over what they contend are its overly cozy ties to industry. Companies like PepsiCo, Kellogg and ConAgra regularly attend the organization’s big annual meeting, where they make presentations to dietitians, hold seminars and parties and provide free samples of their products.”

The implication seems to be that dietitians should be free from connections with industry.  But, that's silly.  It's not necessarily a bad idea for food companies to engage with associations like this.  After all, if the members of the association are doing research relevant to the industry and the foods people are actually eating, then that would be reflected in  the industry showing up and contributing at their meetings.  True, one must be cautious of conflicts of interest, but one must also recognize the power of working with the companies actually selling people food to enact dietary change.  

Food Labels - Environmental Edition

I had a recent request on Twitter asking for my thoughts on environmental labels for food.  The question seems to be motivated by recent discussions about the USDA and the Dept of Health and Human Services possibly incorporating environmental considerations into the federal dietary guidelines.  As I've previously noted, this move makes me a bit nervous because it entails non-scientific value judgments about how to integrate disparate issues (health and environment) into a single overall recommendation.  But, even as I said there: 

“It isn’t necessarily a bad idea for the government to convey the scientific evidence on the environmental impacts of producing different foods.”

Of course, that still leaves many unanswered questions.  What do we mean by environment?  Just C02, or is it water quality, or deforestation, or what?  Is the label voluntary or mandatory?  How will food companies respond to the label?  What do consumers understand about the label?  And so on.

In principle, it is possible to imagine something like a nutrition facts panel for environmental issues.  However, the two are not as analogous as might first appear.  First, scientists have a pretty good idea how to measure the fat, carb, and protein contents of food, whereas measuring C02 or deforestation impacts is tricky business with a lot of uncertainty.  Moreover, the nutritional content of a processed food is relatively stable regardless of where the raw ingredients came from, which plant or facility was used to manufacture it, how it got to the store, or how you transported and cooked it.  None of this would be true for an environmental label, which would require more more extensive (and more costly) monitoring and tracing, and if it is at all accurate, one could have two Wheaties boxes that are nutritionally equivalent but with very different environmental impacts.  That may be all the more reason to inform consumers, but the point I'm trying to emphasize here is the much higher cost and greater uncertainty in informing about nutrition vs the environment.  

Finally, an perhaps most importantly, nutritional outcomes are, by and large, what we economists would call "private goods."  The nutrient contents of the foods I eat affect me personally and not others (let's put aside Medicare/Medicare, which is another issue I've touched on here, here, here, and here).  In these cases, the effects of a label on my choices, and ultimate welfare consequences are more straightforward.  Let's compare that to environmental labels, which signal attributes associated with public goods and possible externalities, where we suspect there are likely to be problems with coordination, free riding, etc.  I suspect most economists would tend to look toward getting the property rights or the prices right as the "solutions" in these cases rather than looking toward labels (here's a paper I wrote on that issue).

Finally, I'll note there is a long literature in agricultural economics on food labels - focusing on when and under what conditions labels enhance social welfare.  The results of this literature are hard to summarize (meaning the effects are complex).  Here are a few good places to start if you're interested in the topic.

My answer to the question: should food products contain environmental labels?  I don't know.  There are far too many unanswered questions to say anything more precise than that.