Food labelling: paternalism, nudges or consumer empowerment?

As is well know, the EU Commission proposed a draft Regulation setting down general principles for food labelling which will have to be respected by industry. The declared goal of the labelling reform is to enable European consumers to get comprehensive information on the contents and the composition of food products such as to help them to make an informed choice while purchasing their foodstuffs. In particular, the Commission proposal requires that the energy, fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates with specific reference to sugars and salt content per 100 ml/g or per portion of the product are displayed clearly on the front of the packet. In addition, the proportion of these elements to the reference intakes (e.g. Recommended Daily Allowance) must be indicated. 

As epitomised by the recent EP’s vote the challenge is now to turn into operational rules these provisions on nutrition information and guideline daily amounts. As vocally reported by the media, Nutella and other sweet products won’t be subject to carry mandatory red warning stickers. Indeed, a clear majority of MEPs rejected a proposal by the S&D, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups to introduce a traffic light system, which would have required certain processed foods to bear red, amber and green values to indicate high, medium or low levels of salt, sugar and fat. Yeah, to the listing of the nutritional information but Ney to their translation into scales of colors … 

The ongoing EU reform of consumer information and labelling of food products should be contextualised within a broader intellectual debate on the role of public authorities in shaping consumer preferences and life-style. According to the classic libertarian point of view, governments should not regulate private behaviour that did not harm anyone else, however distasteful others. What their citizens eat, drink or how they behave belong to their private sphere. Therefore – it is argued  – the State should refrain from extending its grip over virtually all forms of human endeavour. Yet, one might notice that this is not a value-neutral view, but one that builds upon the kind of individualistic premises that characterises one distinct kind of liberal theory. The question remains as to how to draw a line between private and public (i.e. healthier people can imply less health costs for society as a whole, right?).

 

Another view, which is apparently on the rise among industrialised nations and certainly across the Atlantic, legitimises instead governmental attempts at shaping private behaviour. It should be a duty of public authorities to inform their citizens about the consequences stemming from their daily choices and chosen lifestyles (i.e. smoking kills you, it contains high levels of sodium, etc).

 

There is a clear inherent tension between these two visions of government’s role in private behaviour. As a politician, choosing the latter over the form warrants you the title of paternalistic decision-maker. This is not necessarily the coolest qualifier that you could get. As recently stated, “when politicians start regulating private behaviour they find it very hard to quit”. In other words, curbing addiction would become a source of addiction itself. Historically, - it is reminded to us – only the Nazi had run major antismoking campaign (sic).

 

A way out of this conundrum was recently proposed by Cass Sunstein (today’s Obama regulatory tsar) and Richard Thaler (U.Chicago’s pioneer researcher in behavioural finance) in their award-winning Nudge. Their reconciliatory thinking appeals to both the right and the left of the political spectrum, as evidenced by their actual influence on both Obama’s team and the recently elected UK’s Tories (Nudge was notoriously picked as one of the 2009 Summer readings of the Tories party’s members).