retail news in context, analysis with attitude

The University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences is out with a study suggesting that nutrition labels on raw fish packaging may make people - especially parents - more likely to buy such products, which are seen as a good source of nutrients and a promoter of cardiovascular health.

According to a story in the Santa Rosa Press Gazette, the study was conducted because, while raw meat and poultry product packaging is required by law to carry nutrition information, raw fish is not. And so, "researchers focused on three types of information: nutrition, health and a combination of nutrition and health. By putting the same nutrition label on raw seafood packages as consumers can find on raw packages of meat, consumers are more willing to buy the raw seafood, the study found."

Among the questions posed in a survey was why consumers "choose seafood for a family meal. Eighty percent cited taste as the most important reason, followed by nutrition, variety, price, fat content, calories and preparation time." The relatively high ranking of nutrition as a factor, the researchers point out, indicates that labeling could actually drive consumption ... which is seen as important since "per-capita consumption of seafood in the United States is about 4.8 ounces per week, which is below the minimum recommendation of 7 ounces per week by the heart association."
KC's View:
It is, I think, a pretty good rule of thumb that nutrition labeling is good when placed on foods that are good for you, and not so good for foods that may not be so good. It isn't a big leap to believe that companies producing good-for-you foods will be far more embracing of nutrition labels, and that the companies fighting them are making products that are not so good for one's health.