An Urban's Rural View

If you believe the critics, processed food makes up as much as 70% of the American diet. Bewail that as the critics will, chances are Americans will continue to devour large amounts of processed food for decades to come. It's cheap. More important still, it's convenient.

So if the critics want to improve the nation's eating habits, they should strive to get the food industry to reduce the fat, sugar and salt in processed food. The question is, what's the best way to accomplish that?

One way is education. Theory: The more people understand they're consuming too much fat, sugar and salt, the more they'll demand healthful alternatives. If they do, industry will respond.

Another way is regulation. Theory: It's quicker and surer to just require industry to make healthier food. Fine the companies and jail their executives if they don't. If healthier is all that's available, people will eat it. They'll have no choice.

Is either theory right? The question brings to mind an old saying, which has been attributed to both Albert Einstein and Yogi Berra: "In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is."

In theory, education works. In practice, it works slowly and fitfully. Thanks to education, supermarkets these days offer more alternatives than ever. Shoppers can find reduced-calorie, reduced-fat, low-sodium, whole-grain and gluten-free products. But they're the exceptions. Many, probably most, aren't interested. To them, the healthier versions lack taste. Or they just don't see the need for them.

In theory, regulation works. In practice, industry hires lobbyists and resists it, often successfully. The tougher the law, the harder it is to pass. If passed, implementing regulations can take forever to write and money for enforcement can be hard to come by. Even if enforced, regulations don't always have the desired effect.

That said, the threat of regulation can have an impact. Sometimes it prompts industry to make changes in products in hopes of heading regulation off.

Or are those changes in response to consumer demand? Sometimes it's hard to know.

In Europe, according to foodnavigator.com, some companies are "covertly" reducing the salt in their products (http://tiny.cc/…). They're not bragging about it, fearing "low sodium" will turn many customers off. The article attributes the changes to consumer demand. But if that's the case, why are the companies hush-hushing it?

A New York Times story (http://tiny.cc/…) the other day described in fascinating detail how PepsiCo is taking tips from big-name chefs on maintaining flavor in products with fewer unhealthy ingredients. Pepsi has already produced an instant cereal that uses fruits and oats for sweetness in place of added sugar. It has learned how to build flavor into flavored potato chips while cutting the salt content by a quarter.

Corporate efforts like these, the Times says, are partly about consumers' increasing knowledge of what's in food and partly about keeping regulators at bay.

In theory, that sounds about right.

In practice, who knows?

urbanity@hotmail.com

(ES/)

© Copyright 2013 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved.