In the overwhelming majority of all cases I would agree with MCC on the grounds that it makes no sense to restrict consumer choice. I prefer cheap products, but if others want to pay a premium for peace of mind…then be my guest.
But I think we *may* have an exception here. BGH is a naturally occurring hormone; however, many farmers give cows FDA-approved BGH supplements to increase milk production. So it is IMPOSSIBLE to drink milk without BGH. Labeling a milk product as “hormone-free” is udderly false. It’s comparable to baseball players claiming to be “testosterone free”. It is just false. Moreover, because BGH is naturally occurring it fosters unjustified consumer fear for a product for which there is no evidence of harm.
There are already labeling options like “natural”, “organic”, etc. to distinguish the farming practices used in raising milk products. These are not well-defined and there is a great deal of consumer misconception about what exactly the labels mean—both in terms of health benefits and production practices. (That is to say, there is significant room for improvement.
Keep in mind incentives always run both ways. Ben & Jerry’s wants to label their products as “hormone-free” to capitalize on consumer fear without going the extra step to purchase the more expensive “natural” or “organic” milk products which are more clearly defined and actually provide the substantive difference that *some* consumers demand.
The NYTimes has an excellent Op-Ed on “Food Politics” today that calls for a little moderation in the whole debate.
4 comments:
Why not let the consumer decide? Personally, I like to shop and choose food items based on my preferences. Since when does more information about what I'm buying (or not buying) hurt?
It sounds like what you're arguing for is that labeling should be more exact. Rather than "BGH free," the label should say "from cows not given BGH supplements." I think that greater detail would do more to clear up what labels really mean, than to remove labels entirely -- and leave consumers without a way to shop according to their preferences.
Also, your statements here on the validity of "natural" and "organic" labeling appear to be contradictory. Maybe Ben and Jerry agree with your first statement (that the terms are not well defined), and think that the more important condition to look for in milk is a lack of BGH supplements.
My preference is strongly in favor of MORE consumer choice, not less. But we should be able to agree that consumer choice based on misleading or false information is worse than no choice at all. I don't think this issue is as black/white as that, but I think things have gotten pretty gray.
I am arguing for more choice and better informed buyers through more precise information and accurate labeling. "Natural" and "organic" are imperfect, but they are widely accepted as legit. "Hormone-free" is not. I would support it labeling with "free from hormone supplements"--you can't argue with that. My guess is Ben and Jerry aren't willing to make that leap. I suspect this is because they know something closer to honest advertisement won't resonate as well with frightened consumers.
I agree that consumer choice based on false or misleading information is not desirable. If that's the real issue, it seems more logical that some actor should take on the role of providing the missing information and advocating for more specific labels, rather than arguing that they should be removed entirely.
You point a finger at Ben and Jerry as if they're part of a conspiracy to profit off of fear, but what I think they're really trying to profit off of is people's enjoyment of/guilt about eating ice cream -- the healthier the ice cream seems, the less guilt the consumer needs to feel...and the more he/she will eat and buy. On that note, I doubt they'd mind a more specific label.
Why not just label the ice cream "fat free" if no fat supplements were fed to the cows? Because it's FALSE. That is where this argument hinges.
I don't think that Ben and Jerry's is a part of some conscious effort to mislead the public, but as I understand it, their campaign is misleading nonetheless. I don't think we should be in the business of allowing false advertisement for the sake of consumer choice, even when the motives are good.
Post a Comment