Posted on by

Americans Expect and Want Government Nutrition Advice

4 Replies

A recent survey by Foodminds, a PR firm working with food companies, provides some interesting  stats on the triangular relationship consumer-brand-regulator. Americans clearly welcome increased government involvement in food and nutrition issues, particularly when it comes to labeling. Among the interesting findings:

93% of shoppers ranked the Nutrition Facts panel as a very or somewhat useful tool, followed by front-of-pack information (low fat, high in fiber, etc.) at 88%.

86% of consumers are interested in the government implementing objective  front-of-pack labeling. This includes information about calories and beneficial nutrients.

58% support  government bans of junk food advertising to kids.65% of shoppers reject proposed taxes on junk food and beverages.

64% said if their favorite food had a warning label on it, they would either eat less or stop buying the product entirely.

Wow. That last stat is amazing – almost two thirds of Americans would cut down on their FAVORITE food? And all it needs is a warning label? Seems like wishful thinking, although some will say that severe warnings on Cigarette packs have reduced smoking.

What to do at the supermarket:

You don’t nee warnings on products to know what to stay away from. A quick glance at the ingredient list can tell a lot – the longer it is, the more processed the product and the less nutritiously worthwhile it is. A look at the nutrition facts panel gives you the whole picture. A product may be low-fat but very high in sugar. Now that won’t help you very much will it?

New! Choose a better breakfast with CerealScan™ by Fooducate

Get Fooducated

Download APP

Subscribe

Follow

  • http://www.consumethisfirst.com cat

    Forget nutrition information, people should be reading the ingredients (or better yet, eating more things that don’t need a nutrition label, like fruits and veggies).

    And more people are against a tax on junk food and soda than want to stop junk food advertising to kids? Yikes! If 64% would stop eating their favorite food if it had a warning label, why are people against a tax? If something is taxed it must be junk. So there’s your warning. Now stop buying it.

    Unfortunately, banning ads targeting kids, taxes, or warning labels would just make food manufacturers scramble to either prove the nutrition value of junk, or change the definition of junk.

    If people have more information about eating better, they can make better decisions based on what a food actually is, not based on government advice.

  • Bill

    “Foodminds, a PR firm working with food companies”

    Once you read that you can take everything they say as just marketing speak.

  • http://www.google.com/profiles/madeingermany Marco

    I’m just so angry at companies that put health-claims on their food – like ‘low-fat’ – when the stuff has 1,000,000 calories.

  • Carol

    Compared to even 5 years ago, this is amazing progress. Back then, there was almost no enforcement of the 10-year old labeling regulations and little interest on the part of industry to comply or offer legitimately healthier options. Now we have firms whose sole service is to help companies increase the nutrition value of their foods and/or market them based on those benefits. As long as they are doing it honestly, with quality ingredients and in compliance with regulations, I am all for it — why would you want only the big junk food companies to have all the marketing talent/ammo? Remember, even nonprofits hire PR agencies, which can get the attention for good products/services that you wouldn’t otherwise know about and which would eventually go out of business without it (as many small, great food companies do… not that this particular firm helps small companies).