The Surprising Failure Of Food Labeling
食品标签的意外失败
If lawmakers want to improve the dietary choices of Americans, the first thing they need to recognize is that the problem is not information.
如果法律制定者想要改善美国人的膳食选择，他们首先要意识到问题不是出在信息上。
Food labeling is one of the least objectionable types of regulation bursting into the scene in recent decades. It is also one of the least successful. It is also one of the least successful.
食品标签是近几十年来闯入市场的管制政策中争议最少的一种，同时也是最失败的一种。
The ongoing explosive debate about labeling foods produced from genetically engineered crops, known as GMOs, is a testament to how important food labeling is perceived. Congress is currently in the midst of tight legislative battle on the enactment of a national GMO labeling bill, to override state labeling laws. But GMO labeling is only one front in the food labeling agenda.
最近的关于标签转基因食品（也就是GMO）的火热争论证实了食品标签多么被看重。为了取代各州原有的标签法案，国会目前正处于一场关于制定全国性转基因标签法案的激烈立法战争之中。但是转基因标签只是食品标签议程表的一个方面。
“Labelists” (folks who embrace mandated labeling as an effective form of regulation) have successfully pushed for an assortment of food labels over the past two decades. Obamacare, for example, requires (as do many local laws) the prominent posting of calories in restaurants.
“标签主义者”（那些认为强制性标签是一种有效管制的人）已经在过去二十年中成功推进了各种食物的标签立法。举例来说，奥巴马医改要求（很多地方法律也是如此）将食品的卡路里张贴在餐馆的显眼处。
First Lady Michelle Obama, a well-intentioned food labelist, is promoting what she regards as a labeling success—the “Nutrition Facts” chart found on every packaged food. Many cities in the U.S. have adopted a new hygiene labeling for restaurants—mandatory signs displaying a sanitation grade of A, B, or C.
作为一个出于好意的食品标签主义者，第一夫人米歇尔·奥巴马正在推动一项她所认为的标签事业胜利的项目——在所有包装食品上标注“营养价值”表。很多美国城市都为餐馆采用了一种卫生标签——强制性地将卫生情况分为A, B, C。
And numerous other labels are mandated or proposed: country of origin labels, safe-handling labels, food justice, even “activity equivalent” labels that would tell consumers the number of minutes they would have to jog to burn the calories eaten!
除此之外，还有大量其他标签是强制性的或建议性的：原产地标签，安全使用标签，食品正义性标签【译注：证明食品的生产过程中不涉及不平等或违反人权的情况】，甚至还有告诉消费者需要慢跑多少分钟来消耗他们所摄入卡路里的“同等运动量”标签！
Big Hopes For Labels
寄托于标签的希望
There is a widespread belief that food labeling would do social good. The First Lady predicts that nutrition labeling will “make a big difference for families all across this country” and “help solve the problem of child obesity.” The NYC Commissioner of Health is confident that restaurant hygiene labels “gives restaurants the incentive to maintain the highest food safety practices.” And the Royal Society for Public Health in England claims that the activity-equivalent labels would “prompt people to be more mindful of the energy they consume” and “encourage them to be more physically active.”
很多人认为食品标签对社会有益。第一夫人预言营养标签会“对全国各地的家庭产生重大影响”并且“帮助解决儿童肥胖问题”。纽约市的卫生局局长确信餐馆的卫生标签“激励了餐馆保持最高的食品安全水平”。英国皇家公共卫生协会宣称“活动等同量”标签会“激励人们更多地关注他们所摄入的能量”并且“鼓励他们去更多地活动身体”。
It is easy to see why labelists hang such high hopes on labels. People are motivated to eat well, so if they make poor food choices it must be because they have poor information. The solution seems obvious: deliver simple information. This would offset the half-truths and misleading messages that food advertising and front-of-the-package claims make. Indeed, when surveyed, consumers often nod in agreement and support more labels and more information, further kindling labelists’ conviction in the value of their enterprise.
很容易看出为什么标签主义者在标签上寄托了那么多的希望。人们都想吃的好，所以如果他们在食品方面选择不当一定是因为他们得到的信息不到位。如此一来解决方案显而易见：传递全面的信息。这些会抵消食品广告和包装封面上的宣传所带来的误导。事实上，调查显示消费者通常也认同更多的标签和更多的信息，这进一步助长了标签主义者对他们事业的自信。
Disappointing Reality
令人失望的现实
But in reality there is little to celebrate: food labels don’t work! Study after study shows that labels have failed to promote even modest dietary improvements. Perhaps most surprising is the failure of calorie labeling. When fast food chains were ordered to post calorie counts, everyone expected a drop in calories consumed and in serving sizes.
但是事实上却没有什么好高兴的：食品标签根本没有用！大量研究显示标签根本没能推动哪怕一点膳食方面的进步。也许最让人吃惊的是卡路里标签的失败：当快餐连锁店被命令标注卡路里数值时，所有人都以为卡路里消费量和食物的大小都会下降。
But no! Research found almost no significant change. Even when minor reduction was spotted, it was not clinically meaningful. A modest exception is Starbucks: with labeling, customers were found to consume 6% fewer calories per transaction (interestingly, the effect is due to food, not beverage choices).
但是并不是这样。研究显示几乎没有显著变化。即使有微量的减少，也不具备任何临床上的意义。有一个不大不小的例外发生在星巴克：当使用标签时，消费者平均每单消费减少了6%的卡路里（有趣的是，这些变化是发生在食物而非饮料的选择上）。
But even such small effect does not carry over beyond the elite food market. Calorie labels have of no effect on low income people or on adolescents. A survey of all the evidence concludes “calorie labeling does not have the intended effect of decreasing calorie purchasing or consumption.”
但是即使是这么小的效果在高端食品市场以外却没有发生。卡路里标签在低收入群体和年轻人身上没有效果。一项证据完备的调查总结道：“卡路里标签没有达成预期的减少卡路里消费或摄入的效果。”
Take another example, perhaps the crown jewel of food labelism: the Nutrition Data box on packaged food. It is widely thought successful, because people notice and use these labels to compare food products. It is even regarded a model for labeling reforms in other areas—a template for improved financial or data privacy disclosures.
举另一个也许是食品标签主义最核心的例子：包装食品上的营养数据表。这个标签被广泛认为是成功的，因为人们可以用这些标签去比较不同的食物产品。这甚至被认为是一个其他领域标签改革的模范——一个先进的金融或数据隐私公开的模版。
Unfortunately, despite their prominence, Nutrition Data labels have not delivered the desired effect. People might choose to eat fewer calories per meal, but then remain hungrier for snacks. Indeed, in the past generation—the time during which these labels were perfected—the number of average “eating occasions” per day increased from 3½ to 5, and the overall daily consumption of calories increased by 400. Not exactly a resounding success.
不幸的是，尽管非常出名，营养数据标签并没有起到想要得到的作用。人们可能会选择每餐摄入较少的卡路里，但是因此他们会更饥饿然后去吃零食。实际上，在上一代人中——那是标签最完美的时代——平均每天“进食次数”从3.5次上升到了5次，总计每天卡路里摄入量增加了400，可见这并不是一个令人瞩目的成功。
The disappointing performance of food labels is confirmed in other contexts. Despite early enthusiasm about the perceived success of restaurant hygiene grades in Los Angeles, newer and more comprehensive data collected by Stanford’s Daniel Ho suggests that grades have not made restaurants cleaner or reduced the incidence of foodborne illness. Similarly, the “organic” label had the unintended effect of lowering the quality of organic foods. And the list of failed labels and disclosures extends well beyond the food area, and has been documented thoroughly.
食品标签令人失望的表现也在其他背景下得到了证实。尽管人们对于早期洛杉矶餐馆的卫生评级方面的成功抱有极大的热枕，但由斯坦福大学的Daniel Ho搜集的更新的和更加全面的数据表明，卫生评级并没有让餐馆变得更加干净或是减少食物传播疾病的发生率。无独有偶，“有机”标签起到了降低有机食物质量的反作用。各种失败标签以及其他失败的公开信息的案例远不仅限于食品领域，并且被详细记录。
Beyond Food Labels
食品标签之外
If lawmakers want to improve the dietary choices of Americans, the first thing they need to recognize is that the problem is not information. Unlike choosing mortgages or colleges, choosing healthy food is not complicated. People have enough experience to know that a double cheeseburger with bacon (1400 calories at Hardee’s) is not healthy, even without labels that quantify this intuition. For many, the problem is commitment. Another diet book or better labeling is a superfluous response to what is at core a question of willpower.
如果法律制定者想要改善美国人的膳食选择，他们首先要意识到问题不是出在信息上。不同于选择贷款或大学，选择健康食物并不复杂。人们已经有足够的经验来判断一个夹了培根的双层芝士汉堡（在Hardee’s卖的那种有1400卡路里）并不健康，并不需要标签来量化这个直觉。对于大多数人，问题在于坚持。再多一本关于膳食的书或是更好的标签都是徒劳无功的，因为关键在于一个人的意志力。
Tax on unhealthy food may help, as it did with cigarettes, but also ignite too much political resentment. For consumers in under-served communities where obesity is prevalent, the problem is lack affordable supply of better food. Here, social policy should begin by improving access to grocery choices.
对不健康食物征税可能有用，正如同征税对减少吸烟有用一样，但是这同时引起了很多政治争端。对于那些住在超重问题普遍，生活不便的社区的人们来说，问题是缺少负担得起的健康食物的供应。在这种地方，社会政策应该始于增加购物的渠道。
But access is not enough. Healthy food has to be affordable, suggesting that some type of need-based subsidy is required. Access and subsidies are effective but expensive policies. They require budgets. This explains why labelism is winning the day: for the government, food labels are really cheap.
但是光有渠道不够。健康的食物必须不能太贵，这意味着有些基础需求的补贴是需要的。渠道和补贴确实有效，但是代价高昂，因此需要政府的预算。这解释了为什么现在标签主义占上风：对于政府来说，食品标签实在是太便宜了。
翻译：Shawn Lai(@NiGuoNiGuoNi)
校对：王涵秋
编辑：辉格@whigzhou