 |
| From The New York Times [1] |
Bittman’s simpler food label would reduceconfusion among consumers. The various components that Bittman proposed areoutstanding:
- Summarizing a great dealof data into a few categories. They are “Nutrition”, “Foodness”, and “Welfare”.
- Rating bar
- Color code
- Highlight topic ofspecial concern such as “GMO”
As a change management and metrics expert, Ihave a few tweaks to Bittman’s “dream food label”.
1. Stick to Standard Scoring Techniques
For each category, Bittman proposes a score of 1 to 5. Since there are 3 categories proposed, the total score is between 3 and 15.The total should add to 10. Everyone is familiar with that scoring system since it is consistent with our base 10 numbering system that started with our 5 fingers on each hand. A total score of 15 is too hard to conceptualize.
2. Eliminate overlap
"Nutrition" is a category that summarizes the “nutritional facts” listed on the current food label. “Foodness” is a new concept that measures how closely the product is to food found in its natural state. To see how “foodness” may be applied to food products, consider an apple
- 5 points - An apple
- 4 points - Dried apple, apple juice no other additives
- 3 points - Applesauce with some sugars and additives
- 2 points - An apple drink with some apple juice
- 1 point - An apple-flavored drink with no apple juice
The concept of "foodness" is still important. So perhaps the two scores could be combined. Using this approach, tomato sauce earns a 4.5. And a new category name that captures "nutrition" and "foodness" could be devised.
3. Be careful when presenting hot topics such as "welfare"
The "welfare" score is also a new concept. Bittman described welfare as "a measure of the impact of the food's production on the overall welfare of everything involved: laborers, animals, land, water, air, etc.""Welfare" --- as Frank Luntz would say --- is "a word that does not work". [2] Unfortunately "welfare" is linked to social welfare programs and using that word will trigger already strong associations. For many, those associations are negative.
Bittman proposed adding the individual scores together to compute a grand total. Usually a total score would be simpler, but food is a highly charged topic. Not everyone yet agrees that "welfare" is important to measure. Since "welfare" still requires more public acceptance it should be kept separate. Per my recommendation of presenting only two metrics, people can add them together if both metrics are personally meaningful.
4. No acronyms please
“GMO” stands for Genetically Modified Organism. Bittman referenced a study where 90% of Americans who were surveyed wished to know if their food contains genetically modified organisms.The study did not measure whether those 90% knew the acronym. But in general, it is unlikely and therefore dangerous to assume that everyone will know what an acronym stands for.
My tweak for this section is to pose as a Question: Genetically modified? Answer: Yes GMOs or No GMOs.
I applaud Bittman for not making a value judgement on GMO. He used a neutral color code of black or white to indicate if a food contains GMO (black) or not (white).
5. My Health / Our Health
"Nutrition / Foodness" could be named the "My Health" score. And "Welfare" could be categorized as "Our Health". These new labels capture both the personal and the community welfare.Here is the updated dream label:
| Tomato Sauce | Frozen Blueberries | Whole Chicken | Sugary Cereal | |
My Health | 4.5 / 5 | 4.5 / 5 | 4 / 5 | 1 /5 |
Our Health | 5 / 5 | 2 / 5 | 1 / 5 | 3 / 5 |
| Genetically | NO GMOs | NO GMOs | YES GMOs | YES GMOs |
I offer these suggestions as a few more ideas tobuild upon. Thanks again to Mark Bittman for starting the conversation and providingan excellent foundation.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder