I often wonder if vegetables had labels with health claims, would we be inclined to eat more of them? It is a common belief that to eat healthy is expensive. If we ate according to the Australian Guide To Healthy Eating, and achieved the required serves of fruit (2) and vegetables (5) each day, fruit and vegetables should take up about a third of our daily food intake. I find this fascinating, that a third of our food budget should be spent on fresh produce. Do you think this is the reality?
Is a third of your local supermarket taken up by fresh produce? When we consider that most fresh produce doesn’t have a label yet boasts many more nutrients than much of the packaged food, we can see that the labels have to work hard to sell the products, often focusing on minor nutrients, or clutching at the smallest benefit to promote sales.
Let’s look at sweet potato as an example. If it had a label it might read low GI, source of Vitamin A, pre-biotics, protein and dietary fibre. Conversely, if a packaged food had a different type of label, one that outlined all of the not so favourable qualities, would we still buy it? I guess this is similar to the cigarette cartons with the confronting disfiguring images on them. Did they work as a scare tactic? It certainly got people talking.
Next time you are considering the cost of your fruit and veg, think about the true nutritional benefits. Just because they aren’t on a label you cannot assume they don’t exist!
Simultaneously, don’t be persuaded by selective claims on a product, as it is often not the entire picture. It could be compared to social media, where people only show their best traits. It’s not 100% reality.
I might sound as if in against marketing, this isn’t the case. I just urge you to apply a bit of critical judgment when considering food choices :).
For anyone in Brisbane I hope you stay dry over the weekend with the expected torrential rain.
As always, thanks for stopping by, Madeleine (THG) 🍍.
