On the other hand, all of the above is true of tobacco. Yet cigarettes produced using locally grown and additive-free tobacco are just as dangerous as any other cigarettes.
Claims on the packaging that try to persuade us of the benefits of the product don’t even need to state explicitly that they will make us more healthy or thinner: they are often interpreted that way regardless.
Claims on food packets may be:
- at the macro level: broad descriptions such as “healthy” or “tasty”
- at the micro level: particular benefits, e.g. “low fat”
Claims of healthiness are based on the presence of something good or the absence of something bad (“low fat”). To add to the impression of being healthy, scientific improvements or preserving natural goodness (“high in vitamins”) of the food can be mentioned.
Our perception matters
Claims which are nature-focused, such as “homemade” or “contains no preservatives” can easily lead us to the belief that the food is tasty.
According to an article on the website of the INSEAD business school, which cites several studies focused on cereals in the US, there may be no link between the type of claims and overall nutrition quality in the given category of product. Nonetheless, consumers still expect such claims to be a strong predictor of healthiness and taste. These perceptions then influence the choices consumers make.
Claims are gradually shifting from science and nutrition-based towards beliefs based on folk theories. Marketing claims must not be incorrect; however, the above description of a tobacco product was accurate even if it was still no healthier than other tobacco products. So it is probably a good thing that descriptions of this type concerning tobacco are no longer allowed in the US.
-jk-