Nutrition

Would Indulgent Food Labels Make YOU Eat More Veg?

12th June 2017

By Harriet Mallinson | Published on June 12, 2017


What would you rather eat for dinner: “carrots” or “twisted citrus-glazed carrots”? Most likely the second choice right, because it just sounds so much tastier?

The sad truth is that many people consider healthy foods to be less tasty, but a recent study has investigated whether using indulgent descriptive words and phrases typically used to describe less healthy foods would increase vegetable consumption.

Researchers from Stanford University, California, decided to target students in a large university cafeteria and altered the labelling of the vegetables to see whether the youngsters would up their intake.

Each weekday over the 2016 autumn academic quarter, one vegetable was labeled in one of four ways, with descriptors ranging from “basic” to “indulgent,” even though there were no changes in how the vegetables were prepared or served.

“Basic” simply read: “beets,” “green beans” or “carrots” while the “healthy restrictive” category included “lighter-choice beets with no added sugar,” “light ‘n’ low-carb green beans and shallots” or “carrots with sugar-free citrus dressing.”

The third label was “healthy positive” with “high-antioxidant beets,” “healthy energy-boosting green beans and shallots” or “smart-choice vitamin C citrus carrots.”

Finally, there was “indulgent”: “dynamite chili and tangy lime-seasoned beets,” “sweet sizzilin’ green beans and crispy shallots” or “twisted citrus-glazed carrots.”

 

– RELATED: 15 Fruit And Veg You Should Be Eating –

 

Unsurprisingly, the more exciting the description, the more the hungry students went for that veg. During the study, 8279 of 27,933 diners selected the vegetable.

Indulgent labeling of vegetables resulted in 25% more people selecting the vegetable compared with basic labeling, 41% more people than the healthy restrictive labeling and 35% more people than the healthy positive labeling.

The indulgent labeling of vegetables also resulted in a 23% increase in the mass of vegetables consumed compared with basic labeling and a 33% increase in the mass of vegetables eaten compared with the healthy restrictive labeling.

There was a 16% nonsignificant increase compared with the healthy positive labeling.

“Describing flavours, textures and appearance of food in fun and exciting ways is a definite positive,” dietitian Kiri Elliott told MACROS. “There is a common saying that we ‘eat with our eyes’ as the appearance of food is a huge factor in our food choices. Therefore any advertising that conjures up delicious images and gets our taste buds and saliva glands going can be a positive and powerful tool when applied to fruit and vegetables, as this study proves.”

The authors note they were unable to measure how much food was eaten individually by cafeteria patrons, although people generally eat 92% of self-served food.

“Further research should assess how well the effects generalize to other settings and explore the potential of indulgent labeling to help alleviate the pervasive cultural mindset that healthy foods are not tasty,” the research letter published by JAMA Internal Medicine concludes.

However, Kiri warns that care needs to be taken with health descriptors to ensure they don’t mislead consumers. “We have seen the backlash against the term ‘superfood’,” she says. “This example can be used to highlight how important it is to remember that the health benefits of a particular food item must be considered in the context of a person’s overall dietary intake.

“We should get each of the nutrients that our bodies need, such as energy, protein or vitamins and minerals from a variety of different sources over the course of each day, week and month and avoid relying on just one source.”