{"id":18229,"date":"2019-10-13T20:33:29","date_gmt":"2019-10-13T20:33:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=18229"},"modified":"2019-10-14T16:39:44","modified_gmt":"2019-10-14T16:39:44","slug":"government-restrictions-on-labeling-products-as-meat-arent-likely-to-help-anyone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/government-restrictions-on-labeling-products-as-meat-arent-likely-to-help-anyone\/","title":{"rendered":"Government restrictions on labeling products as ‘meat’ aren’t likely to help anyone"},"content":{"rendered":"

Trey Malone<\/a>, Michigan State University<\/a><\/em> and Brandon McFadden<\/a>, University of Delaware<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Substitutes for traditional meat products have captured the attention of investors<\/a>, the media and consumers. Plant-based meat options are showing up in grocery stores<\/a> and on the menus at fast food chains like Burger King<\/a> and restaurants like TGI Fridays<\/a>.<\/p>\n

These products are not necessarily targeted at vegans or vegetarians, who comprise around 2% of the U.S. population<\/a> over age 17. Meat, on the other hand, is a well-established market. In 2018 Americans consumed 57.2 pounds of beef, 92.4 pounds of chicken and 50.9 pounds of pork per capita<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the meat industry is defending its turf \u2013 including in the grocery store. Missouri passed a law in 2018 restricting use of the word \u201cmeat<\/a>\u201d to animal-based proteins, and now more than 20 other states are considering or have enacted similar legislation<\/a>. Countersuits have been filed<\/a>, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is assessing whether the federal government should clarify differences<\/a> between traditional and nontraditional meat.<\/p>\n

How important are these labeling debates? We are agricultural<\/a> economists<\/a> and have published a number of studies examining how consumers respond to changes at the grocery store. One key takeaway is that small labeling changes are unlikely to induce large changes<\/a> in the way people purchase food. Indeed, we believe restrictions on what can be called meat could ultimately strengthen pushback against the meat industry.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
A plant-based Original Impossible Burger (left) and a beef burger.<\/span>
\nAP Photo\/Richard Drew<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Consumers want labels<\/h2>\n

Academic studies of other food technologies, such as genetically modified organisms, have found that consumers generally prefer a labeling policy<\/a> to help guide their decisions. To explore how regulations specifying what can be labeled \u201cmeat\u201d could influence consumer decisions, we conducted a survey with Cornell University economist Chris Wolf<\/a> and graduate student Benjamin DeMuth of 1,502 food households across the United States. We wanted to find out how regulating use of the word \u201cmeat\u201d could affect consumers\u2019 understanding<\/a> of ingredients and nutritional content, and their food choices.<\/p>\n

Approximately half of our respondents were shown products with the type of labels that grocery stores use now, where nontraditional meat is labeled as \u201cmeat.\u201d The other half viewed products with labels that described plant-based and cell-based products as \u201cprotein.\u201d Our key question was whether forbidding food manufacturers from labeling plant-based and cell-based products as \u201cmeat\u201d would make consumers more or less confused about these products\u2019 ingredients and nutritional content.<\/p>\n

Responses suggested that consumers don\u2019t understand the nutrition of the foods they purchase, and are especially likely to overestimate the nutrition quality of plant-based alternatives. Respondents who were shown the current labeling scheme overestimated the amount of cholesterol, protein, sodium and trans fats in both meat and nontraditional meat products, but underestimated their calorie contents.<\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

When we asked people how many calories they thought various products contained, they estimated that the plant-based Beyond Meat option contained 51% fewer calories than it really does. For traditional meat options, they underestimated calorie contents by 24% to 34%. Many people were even confused about the likely ingredients in their products. Approximately 30% of respondents thought the plant-based Beyond Burger contained ground beef.<\/p>\n

These findings might seem to argue for government intervention and more specific labeling. However, respondents who viewed nontraditional meat products with labels that did not use the word \u201cmeat\u201d were just as confused about ingredients and nutritional content. In sum, whether a product carried the m-word or not, consumers knew little about what it contained or whether it was good for them.<\/p>\n

No clear commercial advantage<\/h2>\n

If laws restricting what can be called \u201cmeat\u201d don\u2019t reduce confusion, why are industry groups lobbying so fiercely for them? Some cynics argue that rather than protecting consumers, the industry aims to slow the growth of upstart competitors<\/a>.<\/p>\n

At the same time, key players in the traditional meat industry are investing in alternative meat products. Tyson Foods was an early investor in Beyond Meat and now plans to develop its own line<\/a> of plant-based products. Kellogg, Kroger, Nestle, Conagra Brands and Hormel Foods have all made significant investments in developing their own plant-based meat substitutes<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Arguably, these companies could hurt their own new business lines if they successfully promote labeling restrictions that make consumers less willing to switch from animal-based proteins to plant-based substitutes. To test this possibility, we conducted an experiment in which we asked consumers to choose between packages of Beyond Meat, frozen beef patties, fresh beef patties and a lab-grown alternative not yet available on the market.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Choice sets with all products labeled as meat (top), and alternative products labeled \u2018protein\u2019 (bottom).<\/span>
\nTrey Malone<\/span>, CC BY-ND<\/a><\/span><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

These options were displayed multiple times at varying prices, which allowed us to assess how price differences affected consumers\u2019 decisions.<\/p>\n

We found that eliminating the word \u201cmeat\u201d from nontraditional meat product labels did not affect the percentage of consumers who chose traditional meat products. The only noticeable difference was that when meat alternatives were labeled as such, more people opted out of purchasing any option. Our data suggest that at least in the short run, the meat industry has little to gain from advocating for labeling restrictions on these plant-based protein companies.<\/p>\n