The flaws in Gerald D. Skoning’s theory

This essay aims to expose the flaws in Gerald D. Skoning’s theory presented in his piece “FDA: More Nutrition Information Will Make Americans Healthier — Oh, Really?” from 12/2/2014. In spite of the fact that obesity and poor diet are among the most serious issues that need to be addressed, the author of the article argues that consumers won’t be affected by the regulations requiring all foods sold in restaurants, grocers, and movie theaters to display their calorie content. He continues by arguing that the additional calorie information that will be given will be very expensive, benefits few, and useless at the same time. In the simplest sense, the writer of the article does not think providing information is going to be of help in solving the obesity epidemic or crisis that plagues the society today. Thus, the paper is going to respond to the writer’s idea since I think the writer has failed to address some important things to the audience. I believe nutritional information or transparency has an impact on reducing epidemic obesity in our society since it is a form of educating people on their daily diets.

Nutritional information disclosure will influence consumer’s choice. In the article, it is evidenced that the writer does not think the new rules will have any negative effect on sales at ballparks, taverns, and bars. When the nutritional information is provided especially on the number of calories many customers will have empowerment and self-determination in their food consumption decision making (Wei & Li Miao, 112). I don’t think there is any consumer who will be willing to consume so much of calorie when they are informed of the consequences on the food labels. In other words, nobody likes to dig his or her grave.

The writer also thinks that very few individuals will forgo or return their favorite fast foods in the restaurants simply because the label indicates high amount of calorie. The logic is the individual will somehow try to reduce the purchase of that food since he or she has learned the number of calories. As long the individuals are informed they will always try to avoid or minimize consumption of foods with high calories (Hammond et al, 865). It doesn’t mean people will show the immediate concern but will slowly respond to the information. Furthermore, providing calorie information is a form of educating the individuals, and different people absorb knowledge differently. Few will show quick response immediately to the calorie information provided while majority will respond later on (Kiszko et al, 1259). It means providing nutritional information will not necessarily show an immediate effect but will have long-term impact.

Many people consume so much of the calories due to lack of information of the amount and when they are consuming. Many people are aware of calories being harmful to their bodies and would wish to avoid but due to lack of information they end up consuming. Therefore, indicating the amount of calorie to every type of fast food sold in the restaurants will help many people from avoiding such foods (Wei & Li Miao, 109). It clearly shows there will be a negative impact on the taverns, bars, and ballparks. Again, the writer thinks that this disclosure of nutritional information is going to have an impact only on the careful consumers such as vegetarians and vegans. But in the real sense, calorie information will bring alarm danger to every individual who consumes the fast foods sold in restaurants.

The writer of the article does not think nutritional transparency is worth so much. He views the FDA’s rules as the waste of resources, time, and money. I think as long obesity, overweight, poor dietary, and high consumption of fast foods are the current problems in the society it is worth it. Again, it is clear healthy diets empties the wallet. Informed consumers are more likely to have a feeling of responsibility for their satisfaction and choice they make(Kiszko et al, 1260).When an individual is fully aware of the nutritional information will always be choosy when compared with a consumer who lacks information. Even if providing nutritional information is going to show even the smallest effect on the change of people’s diet in the society it is still worth it. It doesn’t matter if the calorie information to be provided will change one in a million. Saving the life of a single individual it’s not the same as having no impact at all (Hammond et al, 861). In other words, as long high consumption of calories is leading to obesity, provision of information is worth as much.

The writer also fails to realize that providing calorie information is one way of FDA showing concern on the obesity epidemic in the society. He views FDA’s rule of providing information on every food sold in restaurants as the only way used to reduce obesity and improve dietary. There is need of the author showing the positive effects of nutritional information rather than being so against the point. I think considering other factors on the reduction of obesity, providing nutritional information has so much impact.

Works cited

Hammond, David, et al. “A randomized trial of calorie labeling on menus.” Preventive medicine 57.6 (2013): 860-866.

Kiszko, Kamila M., et al. “The influence of calorie labeling on food orders and consumption: a review of the literature.” Journal of community health 39.6 (2014): 1248-1269.

Wei, Wei, and Li Miao. “Effects of calorie information disclosure on consumers’ food choices at restaurants.” International Journal of Hospitality Management 33 (2013): 106-117.