Instead of making a fresh breakfast, I sometimes get lazy and buy my kids a breakfast sandwich, in all its processed glory. And I feel guilty when I do. We think of such fast food as unhealthful because of all the technology applied to create it.
But take a step back. The direct impact of technology in most industries is to make products better. Why can’t we use technology to improve our food as well? In my years working in the food industry, I met many food technologists— and they all had realistic ideas for making our food more healthful: fertilizer micronutrients, adjusted processing conditions, improved breeding programs, reformulated starches, and more.
I certainly want my kids to eat healthful food, like most people I met while working with the food giants. So why don’t we deliver better?
Because a communication problem lies at the heart of our food production process (as I discussed here). We currently cannot explain what is healthful on a food label, completely and simply. The food industry ignores all of the complex biochemistry that does not appear on a food label, because such biochemistry does not drive sales. Meanwhile, current food labels are so complex that many consumers ignore them altogether. As a result, the technology applied by the food industry is focused mainly on cost and taste, and that focus tends to decrease healthfulness. As our technology development accelerates, this problem worsens.
Can we create a food label that is simple and complete and that changes with our shifting understanding of health?
I propose that we reinvent our food labels to provide an evolving, structured summary of our food’s healthfulness.
Suppose you hired a nutritionist to create a score comparing the healthfulness of wild-caught salmon with that of Norwegian farm-fed or Chilean farm-fed salmon, and you published that score on the salmon’s label. The nutritionist could develop a weighted score including factors such as
As Chilean farmers reduced their use of antibiotics, their salmon’s score would improve, and Chilean farmers would start to sell more fish at a higher price. That promise of a high price would provide a clear incentive to act rapidly, when today, Chilean farmers only act if consumer activists are able to pressure them.
Salmon healthfulness is more complex than I just described. In addition to Omega-3 oils, many other oils matter (
For a complex labeling system to actually improve outcomes, it should not operate like our healthcare system’s codes. Different groups of experts must ensure that their own portion of the system both represents reality and is easy to execute. A group of experts in oils, for example, could maintain the scoring components associated with oil, while experts on antibiotics could maintain scoring components in that area. As long as mathematically precise standards are agreed across groups, we could combine components into an overall score, easily and automatically.
Our understanding of salmon healthfulness is also more dynamic and actively debated than I just described. While one group of academics may think the optimal ratio of Omega-6 to Omega-3 oils is 4:1, another group may suggest 1:1. In light of such disagreement, the only reasonable way forward is competition: competing groups create different scoring components, each trying to convince others to adopt their approach.
Today, food labels feature a nutritional table far more complex than an individual score. But despite such complexity, today’s table is less complete, covering fewer facets of healthfulness than a score can. And tables decided by centralized bureaucracies are inflexible, while competitive markets are dynamic.
This labeling approach may be radical in some ways, but it simply combines well-known elements. We regularly use scores such as money and risk metrics. We use components linked by agreed standards for plug-and-play WiFi systems and electrical outlets. And component manufacturers compete to deliver parts for sofas, cell phones, and computers.
Many food producers would love such a labeling system because it would help them use existing technology to create more value: producing more healthful foods for their consumers and generating more profit for themselves. Would any reasonable regulator stand in the way of a new labeling approach supported by industry titans– a true win-win for both shareholders and society?
We may face hurdles to healthful food beyond labeling. Perhaps we Americans culturally expect pills to fix us when we get sick, so we don’t work hard enough to maintain our health. However, introducing an effective way to simply and completely discuss the health of our foods would go a long way toward delivering the outcomes we want. For more information on this approach, see Chapter 6 in Drowning in Potential: How American Society Can Survive Digital Technology.
What do you think? If we changed our food labels, and thereby the way in which we discuss our food, would we get more healthful food?
Our society cannot just survive. For the sake of our children, it must thrive.
Rod
PS: When you’re ready, here are three ways you can grow your own profit while solving society’s big problems:
- Get insights, tools, and strategies for improving society—while benefiting yourself—in my book, Drowning in Potential: How American Society Can Survive Digital Technology.
- Hire me to speak at your next event. Hit reply and put “speaker info” in the subject line and I’ll send you my speaker information and a link to my demo reel.
- Explore how your business or organization can profitably solve society’s big problems through a customized one-half to
three-day workshop. Just hit reply, put ‘workshop’ in the subject line and I’ll send the workshop highlights.
And, if you have read even parts of my book, please help me by writing a review: