In a recent NPR News article, reporter Greg Rosalsky examines food mislabeling and marketing tactics such as “healthwashing” that can mislead consumers about a product’s nutritional value. To illustrate the problem, he points to a UC Davis study reported by his colleague Maria Godoy. Researchers chemically analyzed 54 products that listed avocado oil as their only oil ingredient. About 89% showed signs of being mixed with cheaper oils, and one appeared to contain almost no avocado oil at all. For comparison, the team tested 20 packaged foods made with olive oil, and only one showed similar signs.
Rosalsky describes this as one of the most serious recent examples because listing avocado oil as the only oil while using other oils could violate federal labeling rules. His broader point is more subtle. Companies do not have to lie on an ingredient list to mislead consumers. Buzzwords, attractive packaging, and clever marketing can create the impression that a product is healthier, and worth paying more for, than it really is. Consumer advocates call this healthwashing.
Below are the key points from Rosalsky’s article:
The economics of healthwashing
- We rarely know exactly what we are buying. Rosalsky begins his piece with the economic concept of asymmetric information, where one side of a transaction knows more than the other. This happens with mechanics, doctors, used-car dealers, and even a $10 bag of chips fried in something different from what the label suggests. Because shoppers cannot easily verify product quality, they rely on labels and packaging as shortcuts. Economists see this as one reason governments require ingredient lists and nutrition labels.
- The health halo effect. Most people do not have time to study nutrition labels while shopping, Rosalsky writes. Instead, they focus on the front of the package and use simple cues to judge a product. Behavioral economists call this the health halo effect, where one healthy-sounding claim makes the entire product seem healthier. Labels such as “high protein” or “organic” can create this impression. Even hamburger buns packaged to resemble a six-pack of abs can influence buyers.
- It is also a pricing strategy. Some shoppers, especially those with higher incomes, are willing to pay more for foods that appear healthier, even when they are not. Labels such as organic, non-GMO, and “100% avocado oil” help companies attract these customers and charge premium prices for products that may differ little from lower-priced alternatives.
- Fakes can push out the real thing. Rosalsky also highlights another consequence. When buyers cannot tell the difference between high-quality and low-quality products, cheaper imitations can replace genuine ones in the market. Honest avocado oil producers must compete with look-alike products that appear identical on store shelves. Economists call this adverse selection, the central idea behind George Akerlof’s paper The Market for Lemons.
How breakfast cereal pioneered it
- A food policy expert’s perspective. Rosalsky spoke with Marion Nestle, emerita professor of nutrition, food studies, and public health at New York University. She has spent decades studying how the food industry influences what people eat. She is also co-authoring a new book with a former cereal executive that explores how cereal companies helped make sugary, ultra-processed foods appear healthy.
- Cereal companies wrote the playbook. Nestle explains that Kellogg’s originally marketed breakfast cereal as a health food. Over the next century, cereal companies became highly skilled at presenting sugary products as healthy choices. She describes cereal boxes as billboards competing for shoppers’ attention. She also argues that years of industry lobbying expanded what companies were allowed to claim. As she puts it, “The cereal companies pushed, and pushed, and pushed, and pushed, and eventually forced the FDA to allow them to make health claims on cereal boxes,” a point she says was later supported by Congress.
How not to get hoodwinked
- Read the ingredients list. Rosalsky notes that not every healthy-sounding label is misleading. A low-sugar fruit snack, for example, may be a better choice than the regular version. Nestle recommends checking both the nutrition facts and, more importantly, the ingredients list. Since ingredients are listed by weight, they give a clearer picture of what is actually in the product. She finds the nutrition panel less useful.
- What regulators could do. A proposed FDA rule would add a front-of-package label rating saturated fat, sodium, and added sugar as low, medium, or high, making nutrition information easier to understand at a glance. Nestle points to several Latin American countries that require prominent warning labels. She says research shows these labels reduce sales of less healthy products, enough that the food industry strongly opposes them. Whether they improve long-term health is still unclear.
Rosalsky’s reporting ends with a simple message. The claims companies highlight on the front of a package often grab the most attention, while the most useful information is usually on the back in smaller print. Nestle offers an even simpler rule: the healthiest foods often have no nutrition facts panel at all, including apples, oranges, almonds, and kale. Rosalsky closes with Michael Pollan’s advice, “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants,” and adds three more words: ignore the marketing.
Acknowledgement: This summary was generated using AI writing tools as part of my AI exploration process. For more information, check out the original articles listed below.