In recent years, the strategic marketing of food labels has become popular within the food and health industries. With the current unsavory conditions of food production worldwide; from usage of antibiotics and hormones in meat processing to the use of herbicides and insecticides in the care of agriculture, consumers are looking more and more to food labeling to provide a roadmap of what is healthy. Food companies know this and use labels as a way to appeal to a growing consumer base that is becoming more and more health-conscious. Although food labels help to guide decision making, there is often vagueness in terms of deciphering usefulness and meaning of what the labels actually stand for. Through the use of environmental communication, these labels help frame messages and entice customers into buying products. An example where this is prevalent is in the aesthetic appeal of labels. Environmental aesthetics are used heavily in food labels as a way to appeal to consumers. Some of the ways they do this are: 1.engagement – food labels engage the consumer by creating sensuous involvement through perception. An example of this would be making the label feel like a participatory experience, in that by choosing more sustainable and healthier options, the consumer feels that they are actively helping the conditions of livestock and agriculture as well as improving both the environment and their health (i.e. by choosing organic, I am “doing my part” 2. interconnectedness – labels help consumers feel interconnected to nature and the environment by helping them feel a part of the production process, not separate from it 3. Appealing to the sublime response – Food labels are designed to elicit a response and emotional reaction. By choosing foods that are healthier and better for the environment, consumers feel stronger emotionally and hold a connection with the environment (you tend to see this a lot in the specific color schemes and design elements that these labels employ). These are just some of the ways that food labels create ambiguous messages. By using a critical lens, I want to examine the ambiguity and confusion associated with some of today’s trendiest food labels as far as their true usefulness as a label and contribution to our health. Below I will look at the labels: organic, all-natural, grass fed, cage free/free range, and hormone free. Organic One food label that has become popular as of late and almost a buzzword within the food and health industry is the term “organic.” According to Allen and Albala (2011), organic refers to, “food produced without using the conventional inputs of modern industrial agriculture; pesticides, synthetic fertilizers, sewage sludge, genetically modified organisms, irradiation, or additives” (p, 865). For this reason, organic food is generally safer to eat than conventionally produced food. In the food industry, the term has become almost synonymous with good health, and because of this companies are trying any way possible to slap the term on as many products as possible to justify a raise in prices (organic products are typically more expensive because of increased production costs). Just the other day I walked into Costco, and in the front of the store right as you walk in they have a whole section dedicated to organic products. However, just because a product is labeled organic does not guarantee it is 100% organic. There are three major organic certification labels in the United States: 1. 100% organic – made entirely with organic ingredients (USDA label) 2. Organic – made with at least 95% organic ingredients (USDA label) 3. “Made with organic ingredients” – made with at least 70% organic ingredients (no USDA label). Food products that are made with less than 70% percent organic ingredients cannot be advertised as organic, but can list specific organic ingredients. There is much debate over the nutritional content of organic foods. While the USDA states that there is inconclusive evidence that food grown via organic farming techniques has superior nutrition content than that of conventional farming techniques (Lester, 296), independent research shows different. In the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, Virginia Worthington conducted a quantitative analysis comparing the nutrient content of organic versus conventional crops. Her results found, “organic crops contained significantly more vitamin C, iron, magnesium, and phosphorus and significantly less nitrates than conventional crops. There were also better quality and higher content of nutritionally significant minerals with lower amounts of some heavy metals in organic crops compared to conventional ones” ( Worthington, 2001, p. 161). All-Natural Another food label that has become buzz-worthy within the food and health industries is the term “all-natural.” The term applies by and large to foods that are minimally processed and free of synthetic preservatives, artificial sweeteners, colors, flavors and other artificial additives; such as growth hormones, antibiotics, hydrogenated oils, stabilizers and emulsifiers (FMI). In addition, foods labeled all-natural are required by the USDA to explain what natural ingredients were used. Along with “organic,” food companies also use this term to try to market to health-conscious consumers. The problem with the term is that there is a lot of vagueness in terms of what constitutes as “all-natural,” as its definition takes on different connotations within different contexts. For example, when looking at all-natural meats, specifically beef and fish, companies will often advertise: “no nitrates or nitrites used.” These are chemical compounds used to enhance color and preserve the meat (Shirley, 1975, p. 790). In small quantities, consumption of these are not harmful to human health, therefore, in this case, “all-natural” is not necessarily all that important. On the other hand, when looking at all-natural peanut butter, the term refers to no added hydrogenated oil or trans fat. In peanut butter containing these additives, there is an increase in cholesterol and risk of heart disease, thus “all-natural” in this instance takes on significant meaning. Essentially, depending on the product, all-natural can be meaningful or not. Unlike the term “organic” that deals with the farming techniques of food and is regulated by the government, there is not a true standard of what “all-natural” entails. The fact that all food is processed in some way, either chemically or by temperature, there will always be a sense of ambiguity in determining what kinds of foods are “all-natural” (Welch and Mitchell, 2000, p.4). Grass-Fed A food label that has gained popularity lately not necessarily among the general public, but more among health-conscious circles is the term “grass fed.” According to McCluskey et al. (2006), “grass fed refers to beef from cattle that have been fed only on grasses rather than fed in a feedlot” (p. 2). According to the USDA, for cattle to be considered grass fed, their diet must be derived solely from forage consisting of grass (annual and perennial), forbs (e.g., legumes, brassica), browse, or cereal grain crops in the vegetative (pre-grain) state (USDA, 2007). This must be the feed source for the lifetime of the cattle, with the only exception being milk consumed prior to weaning (USDA, 2007). The distinction of this label is actually one of the more significant ones as far as the nutrition values it carries versus that of its grain-fed counterpart. To begin with, grass fed beef is much lower in fat than grain-fed beef. In addition, the fat that it does carry is compromised of mostly healthier fats. There is a higher ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fatty acids in grass fed beef. In humans, if omega-6 fats to omega-3 fats exceed 4:1, health issues can arise, like inflammation which can lead to heart disease. This is important because grain fed beef can have ratios that are over 20:1, while grass fed beef is usually around 3:1. In addition, grass fed beef contains CLA, or conjugated linoleic acid, which is also a healthy fat that helps with things like insulin regulation, better immune system health, and the prevention of cancer. CLA also is ideal for body composition because it promotes fat loss and helps to maintain muscle tissue. Grass fed beef has four times the CLA content than grain fed beef. Grass-fed beef is tricky because there are a ton of third party companies that have a seal or logo for grass-fed that is not government regulated. In order to guarantee that your beef is certified grass-fed, it must be stamped with the "USDA Process Verified" logo. Cage-Free/Free Range Of the labels mentioned above, one of the more ambiguous ones would definitely have to be the cage-free and free range labels that apply predominately to eggs. Cage-free refers to eggs that have been laid by hens that were not kept in cages, although there is no regulation of care beyond that. Free range refers to eggs that have been laid by hens that have been allowed access to the outside, however there is not a specified time for how long they are allowed access outside. These labels have garnered immense interest within health-conscious circles, and are essential to food advertisers. This is because eggs labeled cage-free or free range are able to sell for $2-3 more in stores than regular eggs. With all of the hype surrounding cage free and free range eggs, there has been extensive research done to analyze the nutrition content of them; and there is no proven evidence that suggests that those eggs have any more nutrition content than conventionally grown eggs. Also, while the term “free range” is recognized by the USDA, “cage-free” is a commercial conception and has no association with the USDA. If you are want to buy the most nutritious eggs on the market, the main labels you should look for are omega-3 eggs and USDA organic eggs. Hormone-Free Alongside the cage-free label, arguably the most ambiguous of the food labels listed above is the term hormone-free. The term refers to any pork, red meat, or poultry products that have not been administered any type of hormones (USDA, 2011). Food companies use this label as way to market more humanely raised products. However, according to the USDA, the administration of hormones are not allowed in the raising of hogs or poultry (USDA, 2011). Subsequently the phrase “no-hormones added” can only be used in those products if it also states “federal regulations prohibit the use of hormones.” In essence, unless the label is referring to red meat, it is considered meaningless. However, eating red meat that has been administered hormones will have a negative impact on your health. Some of these impacts include early puberty in girls and an increase in prostate and breast cancers in men and women. To be safe, it is a good idea to buy organic when purchasing red meat whenever possible. In looking at the bigger implications of misleading food labeling, it is problematic not only because it deludes consumers, but it also has a negative impact on the environment. Food labeling carries a large influence in the purchasing habits of consumers, and major food corporations take advantage of that through strategic marketing tactics. However, in looking at the bigger picture, these corporations have an opportunity to make considerable contributions in terms of alleviating environmental issues through the responsible labeling of products. If corporations dedicated their focus on environmental awareness and truthfully educating consumers instead of looking to maximize profits by “greenwashing” consumers into believing their products are eco-friendly and more sustainable, there could be legitimate headway made towards preservation of the planet. References: Food Marketing Institute. (n.d.). Natural and organic food. McCluskey, J., Wahl, T., Li, Q., and Wandschneider, P. (2005). U.S. grass-fed beef: marketing health benefits, Journal of Food Distribution Research, 36(3), 1-8. Shirley, R. (1975). Nutritional and physiological effects of nitrates, nitrites, and nitrosamines, Bioscience, 25(12), 789-794. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1297222 United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). Food labeling fact sheet: meat and poultry labeling terms. United States Department of Agriculture. (2011). Food labeling fact sheet: meat and poultry labeling terms. United States Department of Agriculture. (2007). Grass fed marketing claim standards. Welch, R. and Mitchell, P. (2000). Food processing: a century of change, British Medical Bulletin, 56(1), 1-17. Retrieved from http://bmb.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/1/1.2.full.pdf Worthington, V. (2001). Nutritional quality of organic versus conventional fruits, vegetables, and grains, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 7(2), 161-173. doi:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Archives
June 2015
Categories
|