Imagine yourself a visitor to the United States, and it is your first encounter with an American supermarket. The peanut butter aisle proves to be more of a challenge than expected. “Low sodium, 33% less sugar,” “reduced-fat,” “low-fat,” “25% less fat,” or “natural”? Why are there so many choices? The United States is a nation of excess. Americans want to have their cake and eat it too, literally. America has long prospered with the image of self-indulgence; this idea has spanned generations, but Millennials and the health conscious of all ages brought something new to the table. They still wanted to have their layered, dark chocolate ganache cake and eat it too; but, they also wanted that cake to be nutritious. 

American supermarkets induce sensory overload even for the most seasoned shoppers. It takes a complex level of thought to figure out which orange juice to buy because each one claims to be better than the last. Do you want “natural,” “light and healthy” or “50% less sugar and calories”? Do you want a juice that has added probiotics or one that promises to reduce your cholesterol? You know the $2.99 gallon and the $6.99 gallon cannot both be “100% pure premium.” Somewhere a line should be drawn. 

The critics of food label law reform have an interest in big business. Food and beverage manufacturers are in the business of making money. Big business constantly monitors consumer trends, but for those suppliers to make money, they want to find a way to make desired products at low production cost. The reality is that healthy is not inexpensive. Food and beverage manufacturers have adopted the facade of healthy products to maximize their own profits and will continue to do so until more attention is raised to the issue.  Marketing companies will “use anything and everything that they can to try to convince consumers that what’s in those packages is health food” (“Healthy Food or Lousy Labels”). It is our job to become informed consumers.  South Carolina needs to join the nationwide debate and create more standards that effectively regulate food labeling so that consumers are provided with accurate information about the product.   South Carolina’s obesity rate has climbed exponentially due to misleading food labels and local food deserts; with increased labeling knowledge and access to healthy food choices for low-income areas, South Carolina can be on its way to a healthier state.  

A notable amount of legislation has been passed in the last century that intended to protect the American people from the misleading marketing that consumers encounter today. Several key moments in U.S. food law history have helped shape the current food labeling debate.  In 1938, Congress passed the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC) extending control to the government to set identity, quality, and fill-of standards for foods. The 1960s saw a rise in processed food, thus creating the newfound need for regulation.  In 1962, President John F. Kennedy established through the Consumer Bill of Rights that stated all consumers have the right to be informed and the right to be heard.  More recently, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 regulated nutrition facts and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 set standards for health claims.  These pieces of legislation did make significant strides to improve food standards and consumer rights, but products in the modern supermarket do not bear much resemblance to products from the past. 

Modern shoppers have shown an increased interest in the ingredients and health benefits of what they consume as well as a general shift towards more “farm-to-table” products. “Organic foods are the fastest-growing segment of the industry, in part because  people are willing to pay more for foods that they believe are healthier and more nutritious” (Nestle 377).

The current food labeling debate includes “organic” and “natural” health claims and various problems with nutrition facts. “There is empirical evidence that people attend to front-of-package claims and these claims influence purchasing decisions. Front-of-packaging claims are used as arguments for a product’s healthfulness in addition to the regulated nutrition facts label” (Skuubisz 506). As it has been over 20 years since the passing of any significant food labeling legislation, producers have had plenty of time to find ways around the old regulations.

Furthermore, just because the government intervenes does not mean the companies will stop trying to improve profits at the expense of their customers’ health. Marketing companies know what the consumer looks for on product packaging; they exploit this knowledge to sell more products, even if it requires being deceptive. Big business does not look out for the interests and wellbeing of individual customers. It is up to the consumer to cultivate a meaningful understanding that will lead to well-informed decisions. 

Consumers can be highly educated on the subjects of nutrition and food labels and still not have access to the best food options. The United States Department of Agriculture created the term “food desert” to highlight areas of the country that have a decreased level of access to healthy food compared to the rest of the country. “Food deserts are defined as parts of the country vapid of fresh fruit, vegetables, and other healthful whole foods, usually found in impoverished areas. This is largely due to a lack of grocery stores, farmers’ markets, and healthy food providers” (Gallager). This is a key demographic to consider when formulating a plan to improve healthy eating habits.  Residents that live within these food deserts have less access to healthy food options and must rely heavily on processed foods that are filled with sugar and fat.  Initiatives in South Carolina must consider how to provide fresh and healthful choices to food deserts.  

On a local level, programs have been created to help inform the consumer. The South Carolina Obesity Action Plans works with providers to help improve the products they offer to consumers. Eat Smart Move More South Carolina was founded a decade ago to help South Carolinians make more informed and healthy eating and lifestyle choices. In 2010, 66.9% of adults living in South Carolina qualified as “overweight” (BMI of 25+) and 31.5% qualified as “obese” (BMI of 30+). This should be viewed as a high priority public health problem for the state of South Carolina. Weight loss does not have to be complicated. It is easy to get caught up in the fad diets but the most important principle for successful weight loss is the same regardless of the regimen: expend more than you consume. Having a healthy diet is key to reducing obesity and reaching an overall healthy lifestyle. 

Following healthy eating guidelines requires attention to nutrition labels on products. Consumers are quick to trust anything that is printed on a package. “A recent national representative Consumer Reports survey of 1,005 adults found that more than half of consumers usually seek out products with a “natural” food label, often in the false belief that they’re produced without genetically modified organisms, hormones, pesticides, or artificial ingredients” (Rock). The majority of consumers expect a “natural” food to be free of chemicals, artificial ingredients, etc. There is no precedent for this line of thinking, people just assume “natural” indicates a product is healthy. 

Similar misguided assumptions are made in regards to food that is marketed as being locally grown. The Journal of Food Law & Policy points out there is no uniform definition for what constitutes “local” food. “Wal-Mart, the nation’s biggest retailer, considers anything ‘local’ if it is grown in the same state as it is sold, regardless of the size of the state” (Rose 136). This has increased significance for larger states. Buying a “local” grapefruit in Texas could have come from anywhere within the 261,914 square miles of the state. This vague definition is not what consumers expect. Companies use deceptive marketing techniques to lure consumers into purchasing a product that may not be as healthy as they were hoping to find and could have come from hundreds of miles away from the point of purchase. Consumers in South Carolina have to learn to question ingredients and origins of food items.  

The potential to be misguided by food claims exists for every consumer, regardless of location or grocery budget. You may not consider the possibility while scouring Whole Foods for “local” vegetables, but there are food deserts that exist in Columbia. People who live within the boundaries of these food deserts have extremely limited access to fresh, healthy food due to lack of nearby grocery stores or lack of income.  Carrie Draper is a Public Health Researcher from the University of South Carolina asserts, “the 29203 zip code has the highest rate of diabetes related amputees than any zip code in the country” (“Midlands neighbors struggle for food options”). This statistic cannot be ignored as there is a proven correlation between diet and some types of diabetes. Members of these low income communities frequently have to rely on cheaper, heavily processed foods because they lack easy access to healthy alternatives or the income to purchase these fresh items. 

Those who are in favor of label reform, “labelists”, believe if you provide the consumer with more information, positive change will happen automatically. Their reasoning is simple: most people want to eat healthy, so provide them with simple, user-friendly information and they will automatically be able to make more informed choices. These labelists commonly cite two recent instances of successful food label reform to defend their cause. Obamacare introduced legislation that required all restaurants to post caloric information next to each menu item; Michelle Obama pressed for standard “Nutrition Facts” to be printed on every packaged food item. “The Surprising Failure Of Food Labeling” criticizes recent attempts at food label reform and asserts “study after study shows that labels have failed to promote even modest dietary improvements” (Ben-Shahar).  Studies have found there was no reduction in portions or calories consumed when restaurants posted caloric information, and research on the effectiveness of the Nutrition Data indicates an increase in daily calories consumed.  

It is possible people want something more simple than counting calories. To truly count calories, you need to keep an ongoing record of caloric intake each day, which is labor intensive and can involve a significant time commitment. Standardizing nutrition information across all processed foods was a noble cause in the right direction; however, people have to know how to accurately and appropriately interpret the information for it to be effective. The reality is that altering food labels alone may not work.  The consumer can be provided with everything they need to make an informed, health conscious choice, but that does not mean they will actually follow through with the healthiest option.  These changes at the federal level have proved relatively unsuccessful, interventions at the local level are more likely to produce positive results.  

Even if fresh food options were more prevalent in food deserts in Columbia, would this be enough to improve the health of residents? Critics argue the only way to eliminate food deserts is to raise income levels. A study from 2015 found “the opening of new, healthier supermarkets in neighborhoods has very little effect on what nearby residents eat” (Cortright). These researchers assert close proximity to healthy food is not enough to improve a community’s diet. Opening a co-op or grocery store will provide these low-income individuals with options, but it must be coupled with other educational efforts in order to be effective, particularly in South Carolina. 

For significant change to happen in food labeling, consistent standards need to be put in place by the government. It takes years for legislation to be created and passed. Successful food labeling and marketing is tapped in to current trends and is constantly changing. As is often the case, by the time legislation has caught up, the circumstances have already shifted direction. It would be a mistake for South Carolina to wait on federal intervention when notable  improvements can be seen through education. The FDA publishes the requirements for nutrient content claims and consumers can make better choices by simply understanding the differences between the claims. An item labeled “reduced fat” only has to have twenty five percent less fat than the original product  (“Food Packaging Claims”). Taking the time to read this information and apply it when grocery shopping, will undoubtedly benefit the healthy decision making process. 

How an individual interprets nutritional information can also influence dietary choices. Today’s shoppers seem to be heavily influenced by social dietary pressures. Health and nutrition should be personalized to fit individual needs, not this week’s trends: not every resident of South Carolina needs to be on a strictly organic diet. Many consumers do not think logically about the food production process. People who desire “natural” products do not consider the fact that most foods have been processed in some way and there is nothing wrong with industrial farming methods (Hurst 350). The additives used during the growing process help keep food fresh; the fertilizers used allow farmers to produce significantly more crops to feed the constantly growing population. While it might be trendy to only eat “natural” foods, the low-income residents of food deserts in Columbia could benefit greatly from industrial farming’s low costs and high volume. 

Columbia does not have to look far for a successful model. Greenville, South Carolina was able to increase access to fresh produce for low-income residents with the help of donations from area organizations, that enabled the city to build a garden in Nicholtown. Qualifying “members” receive fresh, seasonal produce every week for a very small nominal fee (Callum-Penso). Students at the University of South Carolina could follow this model and start a garden on campus or raise funds to create a wholesale partnership with a local farmer. Produce can be delivered to eligible community members and donated to local soup kitchens. 

It is well past time for Columbia to take action. An overwhelming number of community members are living in poverty and obesity; the need for intervention has become life or death. There are many factors that can contribute to obesity, but when a consumer is misinformed about food ingredients, quality, or do not have the access to healthy options, it is impossible for them to make the most health-conscious decision. Obesity has increasingly become a problem in the United States, and direct links have been made between obesity and heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. South Carolinians cannot afford to wait another decade for the federal government to update food labeling legislation or create programs to encourage better low-income food supply; steps must be taken on the home-front to combat false marketing and make gains in the war against obesity. Significant strides can be made to reduce South Carolina’s obesity rate by increasing consumer knowledge and increasing availability to healthy food options for lower income community members.
