April 18, 2016
Should food labels be tied to exercise?
A UK health group is urging the food industry to explore adding “activity equivalent” calorie labels to food and beverage products, or the amount of physical exercise needed to burn off a product’s calories.
For example, a chocolate bar that contains 229 calories might carry an image on its wrapper of a walker with 42 minutes next to it, a runner (22 min) and a biker (49 min).
“The aim is to prompt people to be more mindful of the energy they consume and how these calories relate to activities in their everyday lives, to encourage them to be more physically active,” wrote Shirley Cramer, chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health, in an opinion article published in the British Medical Journal.
Public polling of 2,000 consumers by the group finds almost half (44 percent) find current front-of-pack information confusing. More than half (53 percent) say they would positively change their behavior as a result of viewing “activity equivalent” calorie information, including choosing healthier products, eating smaller portions or doing more physical exercise.
Under the “activity equivalent” system, exercise counts are based on a certain age and weight, so consumers would have to adjust the information based on their individual situation.
Ms. Cramer acknowledges that messages around healthy and varied eating must also continue. She also acknowledged concerns raised about the possible negative implications for people with eating disorders. But she added, “We have a responsibility to promote measures to tackle the biggest public health challenges facing our society, such as obesity.”
Some critics argue that activity equivalent symbols undersell the wider benefits of healthy eating and that exercise doesn’t burn that many calories.
“I think we need to do a better job of explaining to the public that calories consumed outweigh the calories exercised. For the most part, you cannot outrun your fork,” Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa, told CBC News.
- Activity equivalent labeling – Royal Society for Public Health
- Food should be labeled with the exercise needed to expend its calories – British Medical Journal
- Should food labels include exercise ‘equivalents’? – CNN
- Food labels should include exercise needed to burn off calories, U.K. researchers suggest – CBC News
BrainTrust
Zel Bianco
President, founder and CEO Interactive Edge
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
Do you think “activity equivalent” calorie labels would be a more effective tactic than current nutritional labels for fighting obesity? Should labels have a wider goal of recommending healthier lifestyle choices rather than just providing nutritional information?
Poll
Activity equivalent calorie labels would do nothing to simplify current nutritional labels and would probably make them more confusing. I’d rather see country of origin and GMO information. Let consumers make their own choices about what they eat and how much they exercise.
No. The last thing I want to do when I stand or sit to enjoy some munchies is think about more swimming. my arms are sore from too much swimming already. If larger people need this level of remedial info then educate them with ads on TV with this message, not all the packages. Most people — normal non-food content freaks — flip a bag over if they want to ignore the fat content info. The majority of normal Americas eat a normal amount. OK, that is changing and more people eat more. But they need to solve their own personal problems and die off early if they don’t figure out that a box of Cheez-Its each night is too much.
Yes, the “activity equivalent” calorie labels are a good idea and would help shoppers to better consider the health impact of foods. Even though the specific exercise levels are subjective based on the individual and therefore imprecise, the labels would give shoppers pause to consider the relative level of activity required to burn off the food.
The activity labels are a direct and easy way to communicate the relative health of a food and don’t require the shopper to understand calorie indices or figure out the math on a shopping trip. They simplify the communication of food ratings and could help shoppers make more responsible decisions about the foods they choose.
This is not a bad idea. This is a really simple way for those consumers who care to equate how much activity is required to “work off” the snack. It may border on guilt, having to see the exercise required on the label. However, the consumer will quickly go blind to the labeling if they have no interest in it. The problem of lack of physical activity is widespread, and steps like this are a good way to create awareness of how to combat obesity.
I doubt that the activity equivalent labels are any more effective. The concept should work in that they provide an idea of what is necessary to burn of the calories being consumed. However, after consumers have read them they have to care enough to resist consuming the product or to do the exercises. I am not sure that many people will. Most likely they figure “it’s just one [whatever]” and assume their daily routine will work it off.
I can see how this extra labeling could be useful and if it can lead to healthier eating habits it should be tried. The activity labels could be beneficial to numerous people including teenagers and people who don’t know how to read food labels or find them intimidating. While the activity levels will change from person to person, it’s a gentle reminder and may help lead to healthier choices.
It’s not the job of food labels to fight obesity, it’s the job of food labels to sell food and tell shoppers what’s in the food they’re buying. It’s the shopper’s job to shop smarter if they are interested in fighting weight issues.
This won’t do any more than the death warnings on cigarette packages. So I’m with Max and Tom on this one.
Of much greater concern is that these companies need to stop filling people’s bodies with chemicals, some of which are nothing short of toxic. Telling me how far I have to walk to wear-off a chocolate bar when I’m ingesting lead seems rather pointless. According to Cracked.com, the average candy bar ranks fourth for highest lead content in a food product. Much of that is the result of where and how the beans are grown.
Defenders will rush to say that this is a minimal amount of lead as though a small amount of poison is good for you. The article goes on to say “Just from chocolate powder alone, one study found an American kid might get anywhere from three to 12 percent of their tolerable weekly intake of lead in one serving. “Tolerable” is an interesting word, isn’t it? Sort of means “It didn’t kill you so what are you whining about?”
The impact of lead on school performance and general development is well documented. John Oliver did a frightening piece about this on his show — well worth watching.
Some companies like those in the “power beverage” category are removing the dyes and other chemicals. Of course they’re doing it in stealth mode … but frankly that is just fine with me. Just do it!
And then with the little bit of label left from all the mandatory information the consumer may still be able to read the small print that has the name of the product on it.
Pass on this one.
Unbeknownst to me about this terrific UK initiative, I actually offered an even more progressive suggestion last month in response to a story about putting more meaningful caloric information on production labels. My idea: express calories in terms of the potential for actual weight loss, e.g. this frozen pot pie could add 1.5 pounds to your body; this ice cream cone could add .65 pounds, etc.
Obviously while there needs to be clear and qualified science behind the idea, my belief is there is NOTHING more powerful than “HOW FAT THIS FOOD WILL MAKE YOU” to compel better food choices. Humans have shown time and again that virtually any abstract negative fails to drive behavior better than tangible connectivity to what we most care about: appearance and weight.
If consumers already find 44 percent of front of pack information confusing, do you really think that adding “activity equivalent” will be less confusing? And there’s probably much variation in the measurements and application vis a vis activities, I think this would be an act of futility, only causing more confusion. I’m with Stephen Needel on this, and, agree with Peter Charness about leaving little space on the package for the product’s name.
Finally, as we know, what people say when filling out a form, and what they really do when confronted by the actual package in the actual store, could be two very different things.
More Discussions
How Timely Is the Planned Lowe’s Website Renovation Focusing on Personalization?
Is Lowe’s being timely with its website reno, and is it right to be placed as…Should Costco Be Opening Members-Only Gas Stations?
Is this the right move for the warehouse club?As Boomers ‘Age Out of Peak Purchasing,’ How Can National Brands Retain Interest With Gen Z?
According to a recent First Insight study titled “Is Gen Z Still Choosing Your Brand,” while…
Activity equivalent calorie labels would do nothing to simplify current nutritional labels and would probably make them more confusing. I’d rather see country of origin and GMO information. Let consumers make their own choices about what they eat and how much they exercise.
No. The last thing I want to do when I stand or sit to enjoy some munchies is think about more swimming. my arms are sore from too much swimming already. If larger people need this level of remedial info then educate them with ads on TV with this message, not all the packages. Most people — normal non-food content freaks — flip a bag over if they want to ignore the fat content info. The majority of normal Americas eat a normal amount. OK, that is changing and more people eat more. But they need to solve their own personal problems and die off early if they don’t figure out that a box of Cheez-Its each night is too much.
Yes, the “activity equivalent” calorie labels are a good idea and would help shoppers to better consider the health impact of foods. Even though the specific exercise levels are subjective based on the individual and therefore imprecise, the labels would give shoppers pause to consider the relative level of activity required to burn off the food.
The activity labels are a direct and easy way to communicate the relative health of a food and don’t require the shopper to understand calorie indices or figure out the math on a shopping trip. They simplify the communication of food ratings and could help shoppers make more responsible decisions about the foods they choose.
This is not a bad idea. This is a really simple way for those consumers who care to equate how much activity is required to “work off” the snack. It may border on guilt, having to see the exercise required on the label. However, the consumer will quickly go blind to the labeling if they have no interest in it. The problem of lack of physical activity is widespread, and steps like this are a good way to create awareness of how to combat obesity.
I doubt that the activity equivalent labels are any more effective. The concept should work in that they provide an idea of what is necessary to burn of the calories being consumed. However, after consumers have read them they have to care enough to resist consuming the product or to do the exercises. I am not sure that many people will. Most likely they figure “it’s just one [whatever]” and assume their daily routine will work it off.
I can see how this extra labeling could be useful and if it can lead to healthier eating habits it should be tried. The activity labels could be beneficial to numerous people including teenagers and people who don’t know how to read food labels or find them intimidating. While the activity levels will change from person to person, it’s a gentle reminder and may help lead to healthier choices.
It’s not the job of food labels to fight obesity, it’s the job of food labels to sell food and tell shoppers what’s in the food they’re buying. It’s the shopper’s job to shop smarter if they are interested in fighting weight issues.
This won’t do any more than the death warnings on cigarette packages. So I’m with Max and Tom on this one.
Of much greater concern is that these companies need to stop filling people’s bodies with chemicals, some of which are nothing short of toxic. Telling me how far I have to walk to wear-off a chocolate bar when I’m ingesting lead seems rather pointless. According to Cracked.com, the average candy bar ranks fourth for highest lead content in a food product. Much of that is the result of where and how the beans are grown.
Defenders will rush to say that this is a minimal amount of lead as though a small amount of poison is good for you. The article goes on to say “Just from chocolate powder alone, one study found an American kid might get anywhere from three to 12 percent of their tolerable weekly intake of lead in one serving. “Tolerable” is an interesting word, isn’t it? Sort of means “It didn’t kill you so what are you whining about?”
The impact of lead on school performance and general development is well documented. John Oliver did a frightening piece about this on his show — well worth watching.
Some companies like those in the “power beverage” category are removing the dyes and other chemicals. Of course they’re doing it in stealth mode … but frankly that is just fine with me. Just do it!
And then with the little bit of label left from all the mandatory information the consumer may still be able to read the small print that has the name of the product on it.
Pass on this one.
Unbeknownst to me about this terrific UK initiative, I actually offered an even more progressive suggestion last month in response to a story about putting more meaningful caloric information on production labels. My idea: express calories in terms of the potential for actual weight loss, e.g. this frozen pot pie could add 1.5 pounds to your body; this ice cream cone could add .65 pounds, etc.
Obviously while there needs to be clear and qualified science behind the idea, my belief is there is NOTHING more powerful than “HOW FAT THIS FOOD WILL MAKE YOU” to compel better food choices. Humans have shown time and again that virtually any abstract negative fails to drive behavior better than tangible connectivity to what we most care about: appearance and weight.
If consumers already find 44 percent of front of pack information confusing, do you really think that adding “activity equivalent” will be less confusing? And there’s probably much variation in the measurements and application vis a vis activities, I think this would be an act of futility, only causing more confusion. I’m with Stephen Needel on this, and, agree with Peter Charness about leaving little space on the package for the product’s name.
Finally, as we know, what people say when filling out a form, and what they really do when confronted by the actual package in the actual store, could be two very different things.