Friday, January 29, 2016

Pros, cons of food labels studied

 CONSUMERS are exposed to a barrage of food labels, and the results are mixed: While some consumers gain useful information from labels, for others, the label may as well say "certified confusing."

A newly released Council for Agricultural Science & Technology (CAST) issue paper seeks to provide needed clarity for consumers about food labeling.

The paper's authors examined what is known regarding consumer reactions to "process" labels and also identified the legal framework for process labeling. Additionally, they recommended policy that highlights the pros and cons of labels.

"The fact that marketers use process labels as a way of distinguishing and creating a unique brand for their products with the goal of increasing sales and profits should not be surprising," the authors noted. "Consumers now experience an ever-widening array of labels on their food, which raises many related questions."

As such, the distance between the consumer and producer in today's global food system poses obstacles for effective communication and establishment of trust, the CAST authors explained.

Under appropriate third-party or government oversight, the authors noted that process labels can effectively bridge the information gap between producers and consumers, satisfy consumer demand for broader and more stringent quality assurance criteria and, ultimately, create value for both consumers and producers. Labels also increase consumer choices, open new markets and encourage removal of potentially harmful ingredients from food. Consumers then may feel more connected and more able to make informed decisions, the authors suggested.

However, problems arise when process labels are subject to consumer interpretation, prompting questions of whether the products really are "healthier, safer and more environmentally friendly."

For example, the CAST authors explained that labeling the benefits of a process for a new niche product can implicitly cast the conventionally produced product in a negative light.

"This type of stigmatization of the conventional product can be particularly problematic in situations in which no scientific evidence exists that the food produced with the conventional process causes harm or even that it is compositionally any different," they noted.

According to the authors, opinion can override credible science, and the consequences might include increased food prices and stunting technological advances in agriculture.

For farmers, scientists and others in the food industry, an impressive track record of success in applying science and technology to the food system is a proud history, the authors noted. However, some consumers do not share this enthusiasm for the accomplishments, and an increasing number of people express strong concerns about food products associated with agricultural science and technology.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

This can be seen in the fact that sales of organic foods have increased by $17 billion since the late 1990s and that the U.S. organic food market was estimated to be worth $35 billion in 2014.
 Although organic food prices remain high, certified organic products still have experienced double-digit growth over the past decade and can be found in a wide variety of retail settings, according to the authors.

What explains this rise in demand for food with process labels? The CAST authors suggested that food production has seen dramatic changes over the past 50 years, but in most cases, these changes have occurred outside of the direct purview of consumers. During the same time period, a number of new health and environmental concerns arose in the public discourse that may be related to the food system.

"News stories are released on a regular basis about negative health trends and associated claims related to current food consumption and production processes," the authors said.

However, there is no consensus that various health and environmental issues are due to the way food is currently produced, the authors noted. In fact, they suggested that many of the issues may really be the result of more careful diagnosis, improved data collection, changes in people's diet or other changes in the environment.

"These health trends and claims, however, whether accurate or not, can sow seeds of doubt in consumers regarding the food they are eating, especially when they feel like they have lost control over the choices offered by the food system," the authors said.

An increasing number of groups and consumers have called for a ban on process labels, but the authors said this would be a bad idea, explaining that labels can be good for consumers and producers alike. However, the food industry and government officials should keep key points in mind.

From a policy-making standpoint, the principal role of food labels should be to disseminate accurate information at the point of sale, where most food choices are made, thereby informing consumer choice, according to the authors.

They recommended that mandatory labeling occur only in situations in which the product has been scientifically demonstrated to harm human health. Additionally, they suggested that governments should not impose bans on process labels because this approach goes against the general desire of consumers to know about and have control over the foods they eat, and it also can undermine consumer trust of the agriculture sector.

"We believe that a prudent approach is to encourage voluntary process labeling under the conditions that these labels are true and scientifically verifiable and that, when the labels claim a product 'contains' or is 'free of' a certain production-related process, the product should also include a label stating the current scientific consensus regarding the importance of this attribute," the authors said.

Furthermore, they suggested that next-generation process labels should avoid the "all or nothing syndrome" while incorporating new technology and imaginative ways to clearly inform consumers.

As consumers struggle to interpret food labels, the adage "you are what you eat" has become "you are what you think you eat," the authors explained. They recommended that next-generation labels should be clear, science based and consumer friendly to turn the adage into "you are what you know you eat."

Welshans, Krissa

No comments:

Post a Comment