Consortium starts research to promote sustainable and healthy foods

This morning, the press release about the start of our consortium went out! It is a very interesting and exciting nudging project (see a previous blog post about nudging).

This is the English brief version of the press release:

Many consumers support the importance of sustainability and health. Could you help these consumers in making the right choice by changing the shelf lay-out of sustainable products in supermarkets? Or by including healthy food products in the default options of restaurant menus? A consortium consisting of Wageningen University, Schuttelaar & Partners and other parties started with a study on nudging. This entails ways to nudge consumers into choosing sustainable and healthy products without limiting the freedom to choose. The project is commissioned by the Dutch ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation (EL&I).

For the interested Dutch readers, here is the complete press release in Dutch:

PERSBERICHT

Consortium start met onderzoek naar het bevorderen van duurzaam en gezond voedsel.

Consumenten geven massaal aan duurzaamheid en gezondheid belangrijk vinden. Kun je deze consumenten helpen door bijvoorbeeld duurzame producten een prominentere plek te geven in de supermarktschappen? Of door gezondere producten op te nemen in de standaardmenu’s van een restaurant? In opdracht van het ministerie van Economische Zaken, Landbouw en Innovatie (EL&I) is een consortium gestart met onderzoek naar nudging. Dit zijn manieren om consumenten een duwtje – een ‘nudge’ – in de goede richting te geven bij kiezen voor duurzame en gezonde producten, zonder hierbij de keuzevrijheid te beperken.

Consortium
Het consortium dat het onderzoek gaat uitvoeren bestaat uit Wageningen Universiteit, Schuttelaar & Partners, HAS KennisTransfer en het Restaurant van de Toekomst. Andere partijen die hun medewerking aan het onderzoek verlenen zijn PLUS supermarkten, Servex, het Jeroen Bosch ziekenhuis, Ziekenhuis Gelderse Vallei, Stichting Max Havelaar en Stichting Ik Kies Bewust.

Onderzoek
Het onderzoek richt zich op mogelijke nudges om de consument te ondersteunen bij de keuze voor duurzame en gezonde producten. Dit gebeurt door middel van kleine veranderingen in de context, bijvoorbeeld een andere inrichting van het supermarktschap. Een ander voorbeeld is het laten zien van het percentage consumenten dat al heeft gekozen voor een bepaald product. Consumenten die duurzaamheid en gezondheid wel belangrijk vinden kiezen nog niet altijd voor deze producten. Het onderzoek richt zich specifiek op deze groep consumenten. Behalve onderzoek naar de effectiviteit van de nudges zal ook de ethische aanvaardbaarheid van de interventies worden beoordeeld.

Implementatie
Naast de wetenschappelijke onderbouwing richt het project zich vooral ook op de praktische uitvoerbaardheid. Om te kijken of de nudges daadwerkelijk werken in de praktijk zal onderzoek worden gedaan in onder andere een virtuele supermarkt en in verschillende real-life situaties, zoals bedrijfsrestaurants, zorginstellingen, stationskiosken en supermarkten.

Resultaten
Het onderzoek zal een beeld geven van nudges die effectief en ethisch aanvaardbaar zijn bij het stimuleren van de keuze voor gezond en duurzaam voedsel. Deze resultaten kunnen van belang zijn voor zowel overheidsbeleid als voor marktpartijen. Het project loopt tot eind 2012 en de eerste resultaten worden verwacht in het najaar van 2011.



Can we nudge consumers towards healthier choices by changing the way we organize supermarket shelves?



The six reasons why overweight is a wicked problem

No quick fixes and simple solutions. That is the case with the current overweight and obesity epidemic. You can read this important message in the recently published book 'Tegenwicht. Feiten en fabels over overgewicht', written by Jaap Seidell and Jutka Halbertstadt. The translation of this Dutch title would be something like 'Counterweight. Facts and myths about overweight'.

I really liked reading this book, because it describes in easy-to-read and understandable language the current state of the scientific knowledge on overweight and obesity. What struck me most was that science has not yet come that far in understanding how various factors interact in creating the overweight problem and providing effective solutions. A key reason for that, Seidell argues, is that overweight is a wicked problem. This term was first mentioned in relation to the highly complex problems of social planning, but it can also be applied to overweight and obesity.

Basically, there are six reasons why overweight is a wicked problem:

Reason 1: You know what the problem is, when you have the solution. Since it is hard to define what exactly the problem is, it is difficult to find a solution. This definitely applies to overweight. For example, experts often disagree what the major causes are of overweight: lack of physical activity or overeating? Bad genes or bad eating habits?

Reason 2: The solution process does not have a clear end-point. As Seidell wonders; it is not exactly clear what the purpose is of preventing overweight: halting the rising trends or reducing the number of people with overweight to zero?

Reason 3: Solutions are not right or wrong. All involved stakeholders (such as food companies, authorities, consumers, health professionals) have an opinion about the problem and often disagree. For example, last week we had the No Diet Day (or 'Anti-Diet-day' in the Netherlands). Although the day aims at body weight acceptance, it led to debates about the usefulness of particular diets and the risks of overweight. 

Reason 4: Each wicked problem is unique and new. The involved actors and concrete situations are different. The causes and potential solutions are similarly not the same for different groups of overweight individuals.

Reason 5:  There is no room to experiment. It is impossible to check beforehand whether a particular solution will be effective. Essentially, it is often a matter of critically informed trial and error.

Reason 6: There is no clear set of solutions and there can be many solutions or only one. Solutions are hard to find. As a result, Seidell argues that the overweight and obesity problem requires a holistic solution. For example, schools, food industry, health authorities and consumers should work together in exploring solutions that seem promising. After all, there is a lot at stake: overweight is not just a medical problem, but also a social one. 

Trish Groves likewise argues in the British Medical Journal that obesity seems to be the classic example of a wicked problem. Consequently, we need more innovative and collaborative approaches. I completely agree. Acknowledging that overweight is a wicked problem might help getting a more realistic overview of the problem instead of over-simplistic and one-sided analyses and claims for solutions. It also shows that as researchers we should look across the boundaries of traditional research fields and become more creative in contributing to the search for solutions.

Nudging consumers to eat healthier: guidance without being told how to live

Nudging consumers towards healthier choices has been a hot topic for some time. Nudges are simple, low-cost interventions to move consumers towards healthier choices without banning food products or telling them how to live. There is a lot of attention for nudging since Thaler and Sunstein published their influential book 'Nudge' in 2008. The authors explain how to subtly redesign choice environments (such as canteens, stores), the so-called 'choice architecture', in such a way that consumers are gently pushed in a more responsible direction without limiting their freedom of choice. The concept is based on behavioural economics and psychological theories on how people are biased in their decision making. People tend to act automatically, often triggered by the environment. Despite knowing we should eat more fruit, we tend to buy a chocolate bar while waiting in line for the checkout. By redesigning the choice context, we can be nudged into buying something more healthful. For example David Just and Brian Wansink illustrate how simply moving the salad bar to a more central position in the school lunch room led to increased sales of salads.

Not everyone is enthusiastic and there is a growing debate about the value of nudging. The British Medical Journal recently published two papers that debated the question: 'Are nudges really an effective public health strategy to tackle obesity?'. Geof Rayner and Tim Lang worry that governments are only interested because of self-promotion motives. It also allows them to back away from taking strong (and often unpopular) actions, such as higher taxes and stricter regulation. In contrast, Adam Oliver believes that nudges may help people to make healthier choices. He argues that nudges should be seen as additional tools to move society in a more beneficial direction. In the Netherlands, Henriette Prast argued in the 'Groene Amsterdammer' that the private sector takes advantage of human weaknesses and that it is time for the government to develop some counterforce.

I believe that the concept of nudging is a refreshing way to look at creative, inexpensive and new ways to help consumers eat healthier. But indeed, evidence so far on how nudging helps improving food choices is limited, so more research is needed to understand whether they work and how exactly. And if nudges work, will they have a sustained impact on consumer behaviour?

A new healthy food logo in the Netherlands: nutrition labelling stays high on the agenda



Mayonnaise with Choices logo and Heinz ketchup without

Who's reading the detailed nutrition information at the back of food packages? Not many consumers, and that is why they moved a summary of this information front of pack in the form of a logo, seal of approval or health stamp. Look at the picture at the right; there you see a small nutrition logo at a jar of mayonnaise I found in my kitchen cupboard. These logos are supposed to make your healthy choice more intuitive and easy. Quite an ambitious goal for the typically very small sized logos. Not surprisingly, these logos are currently highly debated and received a great deal of attention in research and policy.


This week, the updated Dutch Choices logo called 'Ik Kies Bewust'  was presented to the public. On the basis of criteria that define maximum levels of nutrients as fat, added sugar and salt, products are entitled to carry the Choices logo on the front of the package. Important to note is that this decision is based on the relative healthiness of a food. So, foods which are better in nutritional quality than other foods in the same category may get a Choices logo. The green logo does this for neccessary basic food groups such as vegetables, meals and dairy products and the blue one for the remaining food categories like snacks. These logos emphasize the positive nutritional aspects to consumers as no products are presented in a negative frame. Not all products joined the Choices initiative, which may explain why the Heinz ketchup does not have a logo and the Calvé mayonnaise has (see picture above).

Nutrition logos which also present the negative nutritional qualities of a food exist as well, the most well-known example is the British Traffic Light logo with its green, amber and red symbols. For example, a red traffic light shows that the food contains a high level of one of the  key ingredients fat, sugar, and salt and should be eaten occasionally. The more green traffic lights, the healthier the choice.

The British Traffic Light label (left) and the new Dutch Choices logo (right)

Proponents argue that front of pack labels are effective in helping consumers make healthier choices. Furthermore, Vyth and colleagues found that the Choices logo initiative has influenced food manufacturers to reformulate existing products and develop new products with a healthier product composition. There are opponents as well. For example, food politician Marion Nestle and nutrition expert David Ludwig are less positive about nutrition logos. 'Healthier foods are not necessarily healthy', they state in their paper in which they make a case for an outright ban for front-of-pack nutrition lables as they mislead consumers. Particularly integrative nutrition logos such as the Choices logos have been critized for creating a too simplifying contrast between good and bad foods. A recent study among 520 consumers by Andrews and colleagues showed that 'seal of approval' type logos as the Choices logo are perceived as more healthful than food with a traffic light logo or no logo. Other studies find that for some consumers the nutrition logos feel as an intrusion; an upleasant attempt to control their food behaviour. For example, the French consumer association sees a traffic light system as incompatible with the French food culture. For the French no red traffic light to spoil the pleasure of eating!

Gezondheidslogo's op eten

Considerable research exists on consumer comprehension of nutrition logos and nutrition profiling methodologies. Unfortunately, less is known about real use in practice and whether these logos actually lead to better diet quality and health. That is not easy to find out as there are many factors that influence consumers' food choices and nutrition labelling is just one of them. In 2009, Hans Dagevos and myself edited a book about nutrition logos: Gezondheidslogo's op eten.Verkenningen rond hun recente opmars. Yes, that is Dutch, so that is why we are working on a paper in which we consider the consumer friendliness of nutrition logos. Keep an eye on this blog; we will update you about our progress.