Gary C. Smith, Colorado State University
Have you ever thought how sad and childish it is that some companies can only sell their products by demeaning and vilifying the products of others? What’s worse is the “doomsday prognostications” of fear-based marketing – i.e., making shoppers believe that eating certain products would wound or kill you.
Shoppers Make Purchasing Decisions in as Little as 1/20th of a Second
Forty thousand is the best estimate of average number of stock keeping units (SKUs) in US grocery stores and supermarkets.1 A study of eye tracking shows that shoppers spend fractions of seconds (in many cases, as little as 1/20th of a second) making a purchase decision.2 So, how can the marketer affect that decision?
Few shoppers take the time to read the ingredient list or scrutinize the nutrition facts panel. Some believe they can “tell a story” about their product by use of websites, smart labels, and QRs whereby shoppers can inform their decisions.3,4 Marketers can try to “tell their story”, but evidence shows that if you don’t complete it within 13 seconds, the listener moves on to the next issue.5 Most food companies originally used a “Good-For-You” marketing strategy based almost exclusively on nutritional or economical benefits (i.e., to personal health or in price).
Product Labels Now Focus on What is Not in the Product
Over time, when a company or a product had declining – or even static – sales, marketing gurus were brought in to “stop the bleeding”. What used to work (emphasis on what’s “good about the product” or what’s “good for you” in terms of a balanced nutritional diet or cost savings) no longer did. What did seem to work during the first decade of the 2000s was marketing food based on “what it’s not.”
Less than 5% of all food labels used in 2017 mentioned “money”, “price”, or “economy”.6 A marketing expert said, “I am vexed by the change the food industry has made from presenting positive attributes (e.g., ‘High In Protein’) to putting negative claims (e.g., ‘No Additives’) on food labels.”7 What companies put on dairy product labels between 2006 and 2016 changed dramatically. The number of labels claiming…
- “High In Vitamins And Minerals” dropped by 62% while the claim “Hormone-Free” increased by more than 300%
- “Added Calcium” was down 61% while the “GMO-Free” claim increased by more than 1,000%7
The “Good-For-You” strategy had taken a turn to the left. By 2010, the fastest-growing claims among store brands (ranked below) emphasized “Low”, “No”, and “Free-Of” the following:
- (1) GMO-Free
- (2) Gluten-Free
- (3) Low In Saturated Fat
- (4) Low In Cholesterol
- (5) No Monosodium Glutamate
- (10) High Fructose Corn Syrup-Free
- (11) Hormone/Antibiotic-Free8
“They” Influence Consumers’ Decisions
And, how is it that such things become important to consumers? Who else? “They.”
The unnamed “They” are the most insidious myth builders – friends, neighbors, TV, radio, or the Internet.9 Scientists from Stanford University and the University of Chicago looked at >3,000 social media posts by 181 “highly followed celebrities” and found that 88% of their recommendations for things to eat or drink were so “unhealthy” that it would be against the law in many countries to advertise them directly to children.10
Marketers Concoct “Trends” to Push Sales
Food marketers have to dream up new marketing trends every day. Here’s what seems to be the solution:
- Responding to noisy subgroups of the consuming public
- Making something happen by repeatedly saying it is already happening
- Knowing that marketing is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if two companies do it, or two surveys say it, that makes it a trend
- Using a marketing strategy that involves “scaring consumers”11
Fear-based marketing is a strategy based upon “making people buy what you make” rather than “making what people want to buy” – creating an itch the shopper has to scratch.12 A few loud voices don’t represent majority opinions; decisions made at the behest of a misguided and tyrannical minority group with a megaphone – doing good for all of society – can have devasting unintended consequences.13 Inaccurate labels increase prices at the point of sale and create unnecessary burdens on farmers and small businesses.14
“Fear-Based Marketing” Misleads Consumers
Food marketers seem to be catering to a few “loud” consumers who want something “taken out of food” and appear to be creating fear and even mass hysteria among others.15
Marketing doesn’t always depend on what consumers want or need; consumers didn’t want “Antibiotic-Free” until someone in industry noticed that food critics started pointing fingers at what they considered a “bad” production practice.16 Walk down a grocery store aisle and you’ll see a “Non-GMO” label on a can of tomatoes. This is “fear-based” marketing – there are no GMO tomatoes, so there is no chance it can be a GMO, yet it is labeled as though there could be.17
Tell them, “If you eat this it will make you fat or sick, or hasten climate warming, or make Monsanto™️ profitable.”18 What also works now is to call them something better than what it actually is, using the name of whatever is better. Tell them it’s a Cadillac when it’s actually a Ford; tell them it’s milk when it’s pulverized nuts or beans; tell them it’s meat when it’s really chickpeas.19 That’s “fear-based” marketing – scare the hell out of them so they won’t buy someone else’s product and maybe they’ll buy yours.20
It’s fear mongering that has happened to GMOs (originally called “Frankenfoods” by Greenpeace® and other activists); it’s the print media (selling advertising space) and telecommunications (selling viewing time opportunities); and it’s “me-too-marketers” that fan the flames.21
Some Marketers Use Fear Because it Works
Fear is the most basic emotion we have; fear is primal; fear sells.22 You sell things in the “extremes”, you raise money in the extremes, you can get elected in the extremes. While you can win in the moment, you can’t live in extremes and you can’t succeed.23
Science can prove a “positive” claim if there is proof of a causal relationship; unfortunately, science cannot prove a “negative” claim, making it impossible for any science-based evaluation that there will never, ever be a reaction or outcome.24 This has allowed critics, activists, and fear-based marketers to have a perpetual heyday for unfounded claims.25 By 2015, some consumers were insisting that all food must be Non-GMO; Organic; Natural; No Pesticides; No Chemicals; No Toxins; Allergen-Free; and/or Gluten-Free because those are the things they “fear” or are “afraid of.”26
The Origin of Fear-Based Food Marketing
Jayson Lusk, Ph.D. (Oklahoma State University) believes “fear-based” marketing started in the 1970s when sellers of “Natural” and “Organic” food products stoked peoples’ fears in order to help market their own products.27 The food industry has played a huge role in labeling that food does not contain this or that. It is “All Natural” even though no one knows what is “Natural.” Some poultry processors claim “No Antibiotics”, but no chicken in the food supply contains antibiotics. Some dairy foods claim “No Hormones”, but all dairy milk contains naturally occurring hormones.28 The food industry has to stop catering to those who make claims based on one or two studies.28
“If You Eat Rabbit Stew, You’ll Begin to Hop”
In 1994, when Flavor Savor® was about to be the first GMO approved by FDA, Greenpeace® called it “Frankenfood”, and critics claimed that it would result in its monopolization of the plant-seed business by its creator, Monsanto™️.29 Activists claimed a litany of repercussions if a GMO food was ever approved (e.g., it would come at the expense of the US, our markets, capitalization, farmers, consumers, national security, our liberty, and our freedom).30 Some in the public think, “If they eat rabbit stew, they will begin to hop”.31 Others believe, “if you eat a banana, you might turn into a banana.”32 Hollywood, television programs, social media, and food marketers have promoted the idea that there are “mad scientists” that create monsters; food marketers use it to scare shoppers into buying only those products with “Non-GMO” on the package.24 Truth is, when you eat a plant or animal, all of the DNA in them is destroyed,32 and we’ve been eating GMO food for decades (e.g., almost all corn products, canola oil, and sugar are GMOs) with no negative effects on public health.24
Alternative-Meat Marketers Make Big Claims
The most egregious use of fear-based marketing has been that of plant-based alternatives for meat, milk, and poultry. Beyond Meat™️ uses a marketing recipe containing two parts “good for you” and six parts “fear-based” (No-GMOs, “No Synthetic Additives”, “No Antibiotics”, “No Carcinogens”, “No Hormones”, and “No Cholesterol”).33 Patrick Brown (Impossible Foods™️) says, “I’m confident that by 2035 there will be no global animal agriculture industry. Animal agriculture must be eliminated; it’s the planet’s biggest problem, and history’s most destructive technology”.34
Eat Just™️ claims that animal agriculture is unsustainable because it negatively impacts the following:
- Human health, due to nutrition and food safety issues
- Social issues such as undervaluing farmers around the globe
- Environmental issues such as pollution, biodiversity loss, and climate change
- Animal issues such as animal abuse35
A representative of the Good Food Institute recently claimed that the world is sleepwalking into climate catastrophe and the government needs to enact policies toward changing people’s lifestyles and behaviors by promoting plant-based products over meat consumption.36 Alternative proteins can have a spot on the plate, but they should focus on their own merits rather than using fear-based campaigns to denigrate animal source foods.37
Activists Use Fear to Drive Changes
“Climate-Change”, “Next-Pandemic”, and “Vegan” activists have joined the “fear-based” and “absence-claims” chorus. Patrick Moore (the founder of Greenpeace®) says, “Climate-Change activists use scare-stories, half-truths, and Fear-Based speculations about carbon emissions caused by humans resulting in climate change with no hard evidence that any of the temperature/weather anomalies have been or will be triggered by human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide.”38
Animal-rights extremists are pointing to COVID-19 to develop “Pandemic Potential”; they are claiming that the next pandemic is brewing on large-scale livestock and poultry farms.39 “Next Pandemic” fear will end when society decides to resume normal life because consumers no longer “fear the worst.”40
Separating Meat From Masculinity
The United Nations is supporting a concerted campaign to “dissociate meat and masculinity” using mass media, social media, and influencers (like celebrity chefs) to attack the relationship between meat eating and stereotypically male traits, and positively relate consumption of plant-based foods with these traits.41 While people might switch to a plant-based diet as a “guilt-free alternative” with the best intentions, unseen risks might show up years later; PBMAs have major deficiencies in fatty acids, essential amino acids, heme iron, and vitamin B12.42
Record Number of Lawsuits Filed Against Food Companies
Misinformation is being normalized; there’s strength in numbers. A record 220 lawsuits were filed against food companies in 2020 for “false or deceptive” labeling claims; most prevalent were supposed misuse of the terms “Natural”, “Wholesome”, “Humane”, “Free-Range”, “Sustainable”, and “Place-Of-Origin.”43 It is absurd that one federal Agency (USDA) requires an ingredient list (i.e., what is not (absence claims).44 The remedy for disallowing “absence claims” lies in FDA and USDA, working together, pursuing resolution by the White House and/or the US Congress.44
Animal agriculture is shooting itself in the foot by allowing use of this nonsense. USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack says, “We all lose when food manufacturers use ‘absence claims’ on labels that play on consumer fears, hoping they will gain market-share advantages.”45
Move to Reject Fear-Based Food Marketing
Shoppers are fatigued from making purchase decisions based on “fear”. The first thing companies need to do to regain consumer trust is to tell their stories so that consumers feel safe and grounded.46 The produce industry has developed a “Facts, Not Fear” campaign to help guide consumers’ shopping choices.47 Miller and Cohrssen say, “Let’s stop the fear-mongering in food labeling that promotes unwarranted consumer fears.”44 We don’t want a world in which everybody is fearful of their food; most people want a world in which people feel good about the food they’re eating and believe that the food they’re eating is contributing to a healthier life.48
REFERENCES:
1 Lobato, Armond. 2018. The Packer. November 15 Issue.
2 Priest, Tim. 2017. Food Processing. September Edition.
3 Kelly, Susan. 2018. Meatingplace. June 8 Issue.
4 Bloom, Gregory. 2018. Meatingplace. October 11 Issue.
5 Butler, John. 2020. Progressive Beef. May 9 Issue.
6 Mintel Database. 2017. November 12 Issue.
7 Stanton, John. 2018. Food Processing. January Edition.
8 Pirovano, Thomas. 2010. U.S. Healthy-Eating Trends. February Edition.
9 Stanton, John. 2014. Food Processing. October Edition.
10 Demetrakakes, Pan. 2022. Food Processing. January 14 Issue.
11 Smith, Gary. 2018. California/Arizona Cattle Feeders Convention. May 13 Issue.
12 Stanton, John. 2019. Food Processing. April Edition.
13 Kreiger, Angie. 2019. Meatingplace. July 1 Issue.
14 Kelly, Susan. 2018. Meatingplace. June 8 Issue.
15 Stanton, John. 2017. Food Processing. October Edition.
16 Uetz, Michael. 2019. Midan Marketing. May 24 Issue.
17 Pagel, Kelsey. 2019. CALF News. November Edition.
18 Keefe, Lisa. 2017. Meatingplace. September 1 Issue.
19 Smith, Gary, 2019. Texas A&M University. March 26 Issue.
20 Smith, Gary. 2020. Colorado State University. November 29 Issue.
21 Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. March 10 Issue.
22 Pharo, Kit. 2021. Pharo Cattle Company. December 22 Issue.
23 Blake, John. 2022. CNN. June 4 Issue.
24 Burton, Steve. 2022. Food Processing. May 27 Issue.
25 Smith, Gary. 2021. Texas A&M University. August Issue.
26 Schroeder, Joanna. 2016. Food Quality & Safety. March 5 Issue.
27 Radke, Amanda. 2015. BEEF. July 13 Issue.
28 Stanton, John. 2018. Food Processing. June Edition.
29 Smith, Gary. 2019. Texas A&M University. March 3 Issue.
30 Meatingplace. 2017. September 5 Issue.
31 Manella, Carmen. 2008. Genetic Engineering News. January 15 Issue.
32 Van Eeneennaam, Alison. 2018. BEEF. May Edition.
33 Food Processing. 2020. April Edition.
34 McMahon, Jeff. 2021. Forbes. November 5 Issue.
35 O’Donnell, Claudia. 2022. Food Processing. January 31 Issue.
36 Bloom, Gregory. 2022. Meatingplace. June 30 Issue.
37 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2021. Meatingplace. June 1 Issue.
38 Bloom, Gregory. 2022. Meatingplace. March 24 Issue.
39 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah. 2022. Meatingplace. March 22 Issue.
40 Doshi, Peter, 2021. British Medical Journal. December 16 Issue.
41 Thompson-Weeman, Hannah, 2021. Meatingplace. June 29 Issue.
42 Park, William. 2020. The Vegan Factor. January 29 Issue.
43 Gibson, Kate. 2021. Meatingplace. September 10 Issue.
44 Miller, H. and J. Cohrssen. 2021. Genetic Literacy Project. September 7 Issue.
45 Vilsack, Tom. 2021. Genetic Literacy Project. September 7 Issue.
46 Sowder, Amy. 2021. The Packer. September 29 Issue.
47 Karst, Tom. 2021. The Packer. September 17 Issue.
48 Bricher, Julie. 2021. Meatingplace. September Edition.
