Inside D.C.

Truth in labeling

I was perusing my weekly “Washington Report” from the National Chicken Council (NCC), and I came across the following:  “Antibiotic-free, Natural, Organic, Traceability Label Claims Driving Growth in Supermarket Meat Departments, Progressive Grocer Finds.”  Add “free-from” claims on “smaller portion products” and the headline says it all.

The PG survey is likely spot on given the magazine’s reputation for quality and professionalism.  But whenever I read such survey results, I’m reminded of a “survey” done a while back by the meat industry.  In this Q & A, consumers entering supermarkets are asked if they plan to buy meat.  The responses are akin to those collected by PG, as in all top-of-mind food issues come tumbling out, from antibiotics to salmonella to “natural” to “free-from” claims.  However, this survey also captures other consumers in the parking lot, packing their groceries in the car.  If they confirm they bought meat, they’re asked what criteria they used in making that buying choice.  The overwhelming response:  Price and convenience.

Food labeling will be a battleground in the 114th Congress.  The opening salvos were fired this week over bills introduced to require mandatory labeling of foods made from or containing ingredients developed through biotechnology.  Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Cory Booker (D, NJ), a proud vegetarian member of the Senate, sent a letter to Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack last month calling out the Food Safety & Inspection Services (FSIS) for allowing meat and poultry packages to carry “humaneness,” “cage-free” and “free-from” labeling without requiring proof from food companies and processors that such claims are true and not misleading.  Of course, the two lawmakers were generous in their recommendations of the criteria FSIS should use in judging the label claims, but that’s another story.

Rather than guiding or leading consumers to make informed decisions on quality and safety, we let the media – informed by the foodie folks and the anti’s – put in the consumer’s mind those issues about which they should care.  The food industry broadly doesn’t usually step in to clarify or educate, but reacts to these same media, jumping on board the bandwagon of label claims and their price premiums, not only perpetuating the behavior and the health/safety/welfare myths underlying these claims, but unfortunately, exacerbating marketplace confusion.

I’m curious if there are numbers to show what percentage of the consuming public truly cares about these label criteria, as in who would admit such label information actually dictates buying behavior. I also want to know where on the economic scale these folks fall, because with nearly 50% of the American public living paycheck to paycheck, and about a sixth of the population on federal food assistance, that target buyer must enjoy a relatively small pool of like-minded citizens.  I’m willing to bet that in the broad universe of U.S. consumers, the folks who care can afford to care, whether the claims are based on substance and fact or myth and that odd desire to buy “guilt-free.” Very rough match tells me that’s about 5-10% of consumers.

Who’s talking to the other 90-95% of consumers, those that shop on affordability, taste and convenience?