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. 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.   

I will use a variety of case studies and articles to encourage a healthy food labeling debate in South Carolina. Everyone seems to be in agreement on one thing: something needs to be done; food manufacturers need to follow a stricter set of standards. Otherwise, the consumer is blindly buying food and assuming that the manufacturer is taking care of their health. This project will show South Carolinians the dangers of false representation on food labels and propose realistic ways for anyone to become a more informed shopper and advocate for change.  

Critics of increased food label standards believe enough food label regulation already exists, and it is now up to the consumer to make informed decisions; but some nutritional claims on packaged food items are misleading, even for an intelligent shopper. This project will examine current examples of misleading claims on food labels, past attempts to reform food labeling practices, and the critics point of view.   There has to be some type of revised agreement on what is acceptable and what is false marketing. The general public should not be fooled by food labels anymore.  

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. 

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 today’s supermarkets 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 shift in general towards more “farm-to-table” products. The current food labeling debate includes “organic” and “natural” health claims and various problems with nutrition facts.  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. It is also up to the consumer to gain meaningful knowledge and make well-informed decisions.  

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+). 

There are many factors that can contribute to obesity, but when a consumer is misinformed about food ingredients or quality, it is impossible for them to make an informed 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; steps must be taken on the home front to combat false marketing and make gains in the war against obesity. 

As the United States became more a nation of consumers, legislation to protect consumers failed to stay relevant.  Producers took advantage of weak regulation to improve company profits.  Marketing can be a very helpful tool for both producer and consumer when used appropriately.  Unfortunately, products found on supermarket shelves today are filled with false claims and flashy promises that intend to deceive the average shopper.  Consumers nationwide deserve increased food labeling regulation, but more rapid change is possible at the state and local level.  

Skubisz found that when consumers are evaluating the healthiness of a food item they are just as likely to use front-of-packaging marketing campaigns as nutrition facts.  The study found the majority of consumers believed ,“if a food or beverage product is labeled ‘natural’, that means the product: contains no pesticides, contains no hormones, contains no chemicals, is grown naturally, is healthy, contains no antibiotics, contains no artificial colors, contains no preservatives, is less processed, is organic, tastes better, is lower in calories, has added health benefits, is low fat, and is cancer fighting” (Skubisz 508). These overwhelming assumptions indicate consumers have been conditioned exactly how the marketing campaigns intended.  Heavy emphasis is being placed on flashy marketing when a consumer is deciding which product to purchase.  More rigid requirements need to exist for terms like “natural” before they can appear on packaging.  

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, changes at the local level are more likely to produce positive results.  
