Is There Room for Fruit Branding?

In the recent article 'Can the food industry play a constructive role in the obesity epidemic', Ludwig & Nestle (2008) argues that the logic of capitalism leaves the food industry with only two options to raise profits – both of which lead to unhealthy diets and obesity. They write:

“In a Western-style capitalistic economy, food corporations, like all corporations, must make the financial return to stockholders their first priority. ... To expand profits in this environment, food companies have only 2 options: convince customers to eat more (contributing directly to obesity) or increase profit margins, especially by marketing reformulated or repackaged products [i.e. processed foods] (an indirect contribution).”

Ludwig & Nestle argue that not just the first but also the second option contributes to an unhealthy diet – and to obesity – because processed foods are, by and large, high in fat. If sound, this argument impacts seriously on the expectation that health branding can promote healthy eating and healthy living: by implication the argument suggests that food health branding indirectly will lead to obesity either because it will encourage consumption of more foods (where the opposite is what health concerns demand) or because the branded products will be processed and therefore most likely to be unhealthy.

A carrot is a carrot. How strong is this argument? Even if it is true that processed foods are, on balance, as unhealthy as they assert, the argument does not tell the whole truth. It rests on the assumption that businesses cannot raise profits on commodities like milk, apples and carrots. But that assumption seems rather controversial to me. Why do they not consider branding of healthy products like fruit and vegetables as an alternative way – and, in terms of public health, quite a desirable one – to raise profits in the food industry?

One prevalent reason for skepticism concerning raising profits on fruit and vegetable branding goes like this: fruits and vegetables are not likely to be as heavily branded as processed foods, because they are commodities and commodities are all the same whether branded or not. The consumer does not experience any relevant difference between a brand and a non-brand commodity.

Everything can be a brand. In terms of current brand research, the claim that a brand experience is contingent on the product type is highly controversial. The standard assumption in branding literature is that anything from products and organizations over nations and ideas to public health can be branded, because the brand experience is an immaterial, symbolic dimension that exists and functions independently of any specific product type.

A visit to you local superstore will make the point down-to-earth. In Tesco, for example, you will find apples featuring Winnie the Pooh and other Disney characters, in Asda you will meet The Great Stuff Garden Gang on carrots, and going to Sainsbury may introduce you to the concept of Kids Apples. Moreover, marketers invent new concepts like ‘fun size apple’ and ‘easy peelers’ to establish fruit brands. Why? Simply because we are more than ready to pay a premium price to get the right fruit and vegetable brands.

Healthy profits. Holding this in mind it becomes clear that there exists at least one more option to raise profits in the current, mature food market; an option, which even Ludwig & Nestle have to admit is in the interest of the public good: to create strong fruit and vegetable brands. And the market is there - more than 80 percent of processed foods are branded, whereas only 19 percents of fruits and vegetables are branded (McGinnis, Gootman & Kraak, 2006, p. 44).

References

Ludwig, D.S. & Nestle, M. (2008). Can the Food Industry Play a Constructive Role in the Obesity Epidemic?, Journal of American Medical Association, 300:15, 1808-1811.

McGinnis, J.M., Gootman, J.A., & Kraak, V.I. (eds.) (2006). Food Marketing to Children and Youth: Threat or Opportunity?, Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.