Modeling Expert Opinion on Food

Modeling Expert Opinion on Food Healthiness

Critical article analysis:

Martin, Jolie Mae John Leonard Beshears, Katherine Lyford Milkman, Max H. Bazerman,

Lisa Sutherland. "Modeling expert opinions on food healthiness: A nutrition metric."

Harvard Business School Working Paper 08-082. March 2008.

According to Jolie Mae Martin, John Leonard Beshears, Katherine Lyford Milkman, Max H. Bazerman, and Lisa Sutherland's article "Modeling expert opinions on food healthiness: A nutrition metric," consumers remain under-educated about the nutritional content of their food. While obesity rather than malnutrition may be the predominant nutritional health concern in America today, consumption of excess calories does not mean consumers are getting all of the vitamins, minerals, and other macronutrients they require during the day to be healthy. The authors advocate a nutritional scoring system that is both comprehensive in its analysis of food products and easily understood by consumers as a way of enhancing consumer knowledge about the foods they eat, and thus consumer health.

This suggestion, while extremely well-intended, is problematic. First and foremost, consumers are already bombarded with nutritional information. Calories, fat content, and percentage of recommended daily nutrients, based upon a 2,000 calorie-a-day diet are already included on the food labels of most major products sold in supermarkets. Additional information about chain restaurants and standard foodstuffs like meat, produce, fats, and grains are also available online, or in some cases, posted on menus. The Food and Drug Administration and independent websites provide suggestions in brochures and on websites as to what constitutes a balanced diet. Offering a nutritional grading system would simply introduce more information to an already confused public, not clarify 'how to eat.'

Even in light of all of the information the public currently possesses, the evidence remains that Americans have trouble eating in a way to keep their nutritional needs and activity levels in balance. This seems to suggest that other remedies, such as making activity and different foodstuffs more affordable and available should considered as a possible answer to the crisis, rather than simply thinking of ways to provide more information to the public. The idea of a 'grading' system seems especially suspect. While it is true that certain foods might be obviously poor choices and empty calories, every food must be evaluated within the context of the nutritional needs of the individual. For an elderly individual who has trouble consuming enough calories, whole milk or butter might be advisable, while for an obese person seeking to lose weight they would not. An athlete in training for distance events might benefit from high-carbohydrate foods such as honey, bananas, even candy or sports 'beans,' while a sedentary office worker would not.

The authors seem to attribute the cause of obesity and poor nutritional decisions to information or lack thereof. Americans have more information about food than ever before, and are heavier than they ever have been in the nation's history. Decisions about what are the 'perfect' foods, on a grading scale, will prove controversial. Heated debate will ensue between low-fat and low-carbohydrate advocates in the media in terms of the weight placed upon certain nutrients in the grading system. Interest groups representing potentially controversial foods, including as farmers, industrial corporations, and meat processers, will only muddy the issue still further with their input. At least with straightforward nutritional information, such as ingredients and calories, slightly less controversy can occur.