Should Junk Food Carry a Warning Label?

If you are a tag leader like me, you know how to find them that you can easily integrate into foods and healthy meals you should avoid. Especially when most of them are I do not even know how to pronounce, I try to avoid foods that contain many ingredients on the label. However, not everyone has time or interest to look at the amount of food they are eating. They immediately look at the labels, and if they sound very healthy ("made of whole grain", "natural"), then the packaging will enter their shopping basket. Do you think that the possibility of eating unhealthy junk food is low when a warning label is affixed?

In the past, we mentioned the use of tax as a way to prevent people from buying unhealthy food on blogs. (Does taxation of junk food promote a healthy diet? Should I impose "obesity tax" on soft drinks? There are two examples.) People who oppose this idea, this is a junk food We say that it is not an effective way to curb consumption, economically hit and continue to purchase goods (or simply purchase generic soda instead of brand name). New research by the Journal of Consumer Affairs shows a better way for warning labels (in combination with taxes) to stop people's expenditure. Make these purchases

The survey asked consumers to choose among three types of snacks (high fat snacks with warning labels, high fat snacks without warnings, and healthier alternatives). "There are three ways to pay attention to warning labels, to pay attention to healthy snacks, to price sensitive methods if warning labels are displayed, or a method that does not pay attention to warning labels.Sensitive" . Using warnings, you can see that the product is unhealthy. Therefore, it is taxed more effectively than simple tax. "This product contains high fat, taxation with its unhealthy nutrition" is an example.

I think these warning labels are an interesting idea. Not everyone has time or interest in reading tags. They are trying to finish shopping soon after a long day. However, if you display a simple disclaimer on the front of the product, you may be able to think twice before deciding to purchase.

When my Time magazine friend recently asked me about junk food warning labels, my idea was towards those substances. My first trend is as follows. No, that's too much. But then suddenly I noticed: First of all, are candidates for some legal warning labels food? The first thing I found was that "all nutrients that are eaten or consumed by humans and animals, or that are absorbed by plants to maintain life and growth" were all. Arterial crowding, nutrients satisfying our fat cells, or caries forming caries may not be qualified.

Another controversial issue is whether junk food should have a warning label like a cigarette case. Do you need to put labels on junk foods and fast foods such as "may cause arterial obstruction, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and many other harmful physical conditions?" Habitually eating sweets, chocolate, sugar-rich carbonated drinks, salty foods, McDonald's is undoubtedly an unhealthy and life-threatening lifestyle. (But since McDonalds gets their food nutrients for free, you can verify yourself with how much fat and calorie your food has)

In my opinion, this is what we have to do. I initially thought that the warning label would go too far, but I noticed that it would not go too far. You should not call garbage a food group. Of course, let's use some objective methods to decide which foods can guarantee the scarlet "J". Other items such as putty can also be sold. However, the food should be food, not garbage. It is foolish to say "Do not buy this food" on the food you are selling. If it guarantees a warning, it is not qualified. Alternative products in all cases