By Brian Wansink
Food companies can help
consumers better control
their food intake through
portion-control packaging,
labeling, and product
reformulation.
F
ood companies have been
accused of contributing to the
growing problem of obesity
in the United States (Brownell
and Horgen, 2004). They are in
a sensitive position because they
are torn between two groups of
stakeholders—consumers who
want a variety of tasty, inexpensive,
convenient food, and concerned
public policy officials and activists
who believe that companies
should be more responsive in
helping combat obesity.
What causes us to gain weight
in the first place is the same three
things that enabled our Paleolithic
relatives to gain weight and survive
the Ice Age—we are wired to
overeat food that is convenient,
palatable, and easy (inexpensive)
to obtain. And we don’t become
obese overnight. Slightly more than
85% of the population gain weight
pg
34
05.07 • www.ift.org
because of an average calorie excess
of less than 25 calories/day. Yet 25
extra calories/day can gradually
become a big problem over the long
run. Such gradual problems seldom
have instant solutions. There are,
however, reasonable steps that
can be taken to help turn back
the tide a few calories at a time.
Successful food companies and
marketers have become successful
because they have been able to
create win-win situations for both
themselves and consumers. They
have been able to create foods and
delivery systems that profitably
satisfied what consumers wanted
or needed. There is no reason to
believe that addressing the obesity
issue will be different. Having the
motivation to profitably address
this issue will produce some of
the same ingenious, innovative
solutions as it has in the past.
Unchangeable Human Behavior
A number of contributing factors
have made us a more obese culture
than we were 100 years ago.
Automobiles, computers, cable
TV, video games, remote controls,
the Internet, and omnipresent
convenience stores have all contributed to our obesity. In addition,
food-related companies have made
it easier and more efficient for us
to do our “hunting and gathering.”
Basically, companies have followed
three key principles that have
helped motivate our hunting and
gathering efforts (Wansink, 2006):
• Consumers Seek Convenience. Innovations throughout
time have generally evolved around
reducing the amount of effort
it took to move, to learn, or to
communicate. Such innovations
respectively gave us the wheel, the
printing press, and the telephone.
Yet these same three motivations
also explain why new houses have
attached garages with garage door
openers, and why ice makers and
dishwashing machines are never
de-installed. They also explain
why driving is often preferred over
walking or biking for short trips.
This desire to follow the path
of least effort results in a number
of changes to our food distribution
system that are market-driven but
which also make the environment
fat-friendly for consumers with
weak willpower. Because of this,
we get convenient, easy-to-open
(and consume) packaging, a wide
distribution of vending machines,
and fast-food restaurants on
convenient corners. We get
the chance to buy foods instead
of having to prepare them.
• Consumers Seek Variety
and Choice. Because we seek
variety and choice, we get brand
extensions and new flavors. Our
desire for variety can motivate new
product innovations that include
healthy alternatives that we can
choose to adopt or to avoid. Some
of these alternatives evolve into
products that are well-accepted
and embraced, such as Diet Coke.
Others, such as McDonald’s
ill-fated McLean Deluxe hamburger
or Hershey’s Taste Sensations
candy, are not widely embraced
regardless of their healthy twist.
• Consumers Seek (the Option
of) Value. With millions of
purchases every day, the trade-off
of quantity over quality appears
to be frequently made. Right
or wrong, this contributes to
why Wal-Mart generates more
revenue than Macy’s. Most people
know which establishment sells
higher-quality merchandise,
but many define value in a way
that influences where they shop.
Furthermore, although they might
not always prefer the less-expensive
option, they still want it to exist.
The food-related company
that provides the most value—the
most quantity and quality for
the dollar—is rewarded with
patronage and repurchase behavior
by people who prefer it over a
competitor who perhaps offers
less value. Whether in the grocery
store or in the restaurant, bundling
meals together (a burger, fries,
and a soda) is often a much less
expensive than buying the three
items separately. Although a food
company might be able to encourage people to eat less if it made
its food more expensive (either
by raising prices or by decreasing
portions), this would be foolish. It
would disproportionately penalize
05.07 • www.ift.org
Brian Wansink, director
of the Cornell Food and
Brand Lab, views through
one-way glass a consumer
participating in a study to
determine how package
shape influences food
intake and satisfaction.
35
pg
• Think Extra-Small and
Extra-Large. From 1970 to 2000,
Iqhpel]_gokbej`ere`q]h
-,,)_]hknealknpekjo]na
^aejckbbana`bkn]se`a
r]neapukboj]_go(^aran)
]cao(]j`kpdanlnk`q_po(
lnkre`ejcÎl]qoalkejpoÏ
pd]pi]gaepa]oeanbkn
_kjoqianopk`a_e`aebpdau
s]jppkopklkn_kjpejqa
_kjoqiejcpdalnk`q_po
ej]oejchaoappejc*
lower-income consumers and,
unless all firms simultaneously did
this, would simply drive consumers
across the street to a competitor.
It is important to realize that
these three principles—convenience, variety, and value—have
driven our hunting and gathering
tendencies for generations. Knowing this provides us with an idea of
what is realistic to recommend and
what would be ineffective because
of the basic nature of consumers.
LnkÚp]^huNaranoejcpda
@neranokbK^aoepu
These principles can lead us to
overeat, but they can also be used
to help us more mindfully eat less.
Most of the leading packaged goods
companies—like PepsiCo, Kraft,
and General Mills—are experimenting with new ideas, programs,
and products that they think will
be win-win solutions for them and
their consumers. Let’s look at what
else a sharp, nutrition-conscious
marketer could do to profitably
offer us food that can mindfully
help us lose weight, i.e., profitably
help “de-market” obesity. The
philosophy behind de-marketing
obesity is that there are profitable
ways that industry can help consumers better control their intake
(Wansink and Huckabee, 2005).
lc
/2
,1*,3¡sss*ebp*knc
the number of new larger-size
packages increased ten-fold
(Young, 2005). Food companies
super-size for two reasons: to
satisfy our demand for value, and
to match the competition (Young
and Nestle, 2002; Rolls et al.,
2004). A large number of us want
to be able to buy a lot of food
for very little money. If only one
restaurant provided a supersized
value-meal, it would catch both
our attention and our $3.59. If
the competitor across the street
did not quickly do the same, it
could start closing up shop.
In 1996, my laboratory began
experimenting with mini-size
packs to determine how they would
influence how much consumers
paid for them and how much
they ate (Wansink, 1996). We
found that a sizable percentage of
people were willing to pay more
for something that would help
them control their portions and
that it would help 70% of these
people eat less in a single sitting.
Although the packages would be
more expensive per ounce than the
larger packages, some people would
not mind paying more to eat less or
to eat better. Given the $43 billion
spent on diet foods and weight
loss programs each week, this is
probably a big group of people.
Does this mean abandoning the
value-priced supersize packages
in favor of little boutique-sized
portion packs? Absolutely not.
There may be sizable markets for
both—one that wants value and
one that wants portion control.
The introduction of either into
the market would not only give
more options to current fans, but
also give others (either the pricesensitive or the portion-sensitive)
a reason to come back to the fold.
2. Create Packages with Pause
Points. In one study (Wansink et
al., 2006) moving a candy dish six
feet away led participants to eat
half as much as when it was close
by. They said this was because
that distance gave them time to
“pause” and ask themselves whether
they were really that hungry. In
the same way, building pause
points into packaging can give
people a chance to catch their
breath and ask themselves if they
really want to continue eating.
This can be done by separating a
large container into several smaller
containers. It can also be done
through the use of internal sleeves
that force us to actively decide
whether we want to continue
eating after we polish off a sleeve
of six (or however many) cookies.
Girl Scouts Thin Mints cookies have
a built-in stopping point. Instead
of being packaged in a wide-open,
no-serving-size-limit tray, they
are carefully wrapped in two
cellophane sleeves. As much as
you might want to overeat, when
you hit the bottom of that first
sleeve, it gives you pause. That
is about all most of us need to
stop. Another version of this is
individually packaged cookies.
These pause points can also
take other forms. In another study
(Wansink, 2006) we took canisters
of Pringles potato crisps and dyed
every 7th chip red, took other canisters and dyed every 14th chip red,
and left other canisters plain, with
no red chips. We then invited 150
people to watch a video and enjoy
the new version of chips. Those
who ate from the canisters with no
red chips ate an average of 23 chips;
those who ate from the canisters
where every 14th chip was red ate
an average of 15 chips; and those
who ate from the canisters where
every 7th chip was red ate an average of 10 chips. Having something,
almost anything, to interrupt
our eating gives us the chance to
decide if we want to continue.
This can open a bigger market
to sell multi-packs with smaller
individual servings. For instance,
instead of selling a large 20-oz bag
of potato chips, the bag could contain four 5-oz sleeves. In this way,
there would be a natural point at
which to pause and decide whether
we want to continue eating. In
another study (Wansink, 2006), we
Abba_pkb?kjp]ejanOd]la
gave 124 students a large zip-lock
bag containing either 200 M&Ms or
10 smaller zip-lock bags each containing 20 M&Ms. Those with the
large single bag ate an average of 73
M&Ms during an hour, while those
with the smaller bags ate an average
of 42. Not a big deal? That is 112
calories less—the mindless margin.
This is the beauty of various snack
food companies’ repackaging their
products into 100-calorie packs.
=ikqjplkqna`$kv%
.*1
81Ua]noatlaneaj_a
1'Ua]noatlaneaj_a
.*,
-*4
-*3
-*2
-*1
-*,
,*1
3. Change the Recipe, But
Keep It Good. Since the failure
,*,
P]hhÎdecd^]hhÏch]oo
of McDonald’s’ McLean Deluxe
sandwich in 1996, food marketers
across the U.S. and beyond have
taken the wrong lesson away. It
was not that there was no market
for healthy foods or that companies
just cannot make good low-fat
products. It was that these foods
were typically new products
that tasted new, were advertised
as new, and were expected by
consumers to be bad-tasting
because they were “healthy”
(Wansink and Park, 2002).
In contrast to this approach,
companies could quietly alter
existing products in modest ways
that reduce calorie density. In this
way, there would be no negative
taste expectations of a healthy food
that would prevent it from getting
a fair shot. We call these silent
changes “stealth modifications.”
Small modifications in formulations can lead to reduced-calorie
foods like candy bars that are the
same size as regular candy bars.
High-energy-density items, such
as those with a lot of fat, can be
replaced with fruits and vegetables
without our even being aware of
it. McDonald’s offers the option of
an apple snack with a Happy Meal,
and Wendy’s offers a small salad
for the same price as French fries.
In general, we tend to look
at the size of something as an
indicator of whether it is a good
“value”—i.e., the bigger the food,
the better the value. While adding
water, or air, or filler may do little
to the taste, it helps maintain
the perception of value, and it
decreases calorie levels. Even if
such efforts only reduce calorie
levels by 10%, this decrease in
daily calorie consumption would
Abba_pkbÎDa]hpduÏEjcna`eajpH]^ahejc
!naolkj`ejc
Naolkjoa
.*.
Okuiajpekja`
kjh]^ah
Okujkpiajpekja`
kjh]^ah
B]rkn]^hap]opa
/*3
-1*2
Qjb]rkn]^hap]opa
/2*3
-,*-
Qjb]rkn]^ha
]bpanp]opa
-4*/
/*3
Qjb]rkn]^hapatpqna
--*,
5*.
Abba_pkbÎda]hpduÏejcna`eajph]^ahejckjnaolkjoakbl]jaheopo]bpan_kjoqiejc]jajancu^]nh]^aha`]o
_kjp]ejejcÎ-,ckblnkpaejÏknÎ-,ckbokulnkpaej*Ï>kpd^]nosanapdao]ia]j`_kjp]eja`jkokulnkpaej*
Pdanaoqhpoodkspdalan_aera`jac]perap]opaatla_p]pekjnac]n`ejcoku*BnkiS]joejg]j`L]ng$.,,.%*
OdknpÎpqi^hanÏch]oo
either slow or reverse the weight
gain among most of us. However,
this would be a slow pound-bypound reduction, just as gaining
was a pound-by-pound process.
Here are three facts about
slightly modified and reformulated
foods: when the calorie density
of a food is decreased, we eat the
same volume we usually do, we
think we are just as full, and we
think the food tastes the same,
as long as it hasn’t been labeled
as being “reduced calorie.”
Abba_pkb_kjp]ejanod]la
kj]ikqjplkqna`ejpkep*
>]npaj`anosepd1knikna
ua]nokbatlaneaj_a]j`sepd
1ua]noknhaookbatlaneaj_a
sana]oga`pklkqn-*1kv
kbhemqknejpkp]hhj]nnks
ch]ooao]j`odknpse`a
ch]ooao(^kpdsepd]_]l]_epu
kb-.kv*Pdanaoqhpoodks
pd]plaklhalan_aerap]hh(
ohaj`anl]_g]cao]odkh`ejc
dkh`iknapd]jodknp(se`a
kjao*BnkiS]joejg]j`r]j
Eppanoqi$.,,1%*
4. Provide Simple But
Realistic Labels. “Education” is the
one-word, easy answer to anything
related to health. Once we say
“education,” it becomes somebody
else’s problem, like the government’s or industry’s. And if their
“education” efforts don’t work,
the answer is to do more of it.
Marketing nutrition is a noble
enterprise, but it is very clear that
education, as defined by most,
is not the answer. We are either
too busy or distracted to read
packages, or too preoccupied or
hungry to care that we should
eat a carrot stick rather than
a handful of Wheat Thins.
Clearly labeling calories and
serving sizes is a good idea. But we
need to be realistic regarding how
much of an impact it will have on
nutrition. Most research shows that,
outside of an artificial laboratory situation, this labeling only influences a
modest percentage of consumers.
Still, it is worth having. »»
,1*,3¡sss*ebp*knc
/3
lc
Abba_pkbL]_g]caOevakj?kjoqilpekj*
=ikqjp_kjoqia`
Lnk`q_p
Oi]hh_kjp]ejan
Ia`eqi_kjp]ejan
H]nca_kjp]ejan
Keh$iH%
55
-/0
-.0
?]j`u$lea_ao%
2/
-,/
-..
Ol]cdappe$opn]j`o%
./0
//-
/.-
Abba_pkbl]_g]ca
oevakj_kjoqilpekj*
L]jaheoposanacerajoi]hh
_kjp]ejano_kjp]ejejc
03.)iHkb?neo_kkehkn--0
I"I_]j`eaokn55opn]j`o
kb?na]iappaol]cdappe7
ia`eqi_kjp]ejano_kjp]ej)
ejcpse_apdkoa]ikqjpo7
]j`h]nca_kjp]ejano
_kjp]ejejcpdnaapeiaopdkoa
]ikqjpo7]j`pda]ikqjpo
_kjoqia`sanaia]oqna`*
Pdanaoqhpoodkspd]plaklha
oanrejcpdaioahraobnki
h]ncanl]_g]cao_kjoqia
iknakbpdalnk`q_p*Bnki
S]joejg$-552%*
lc
/4
The question is where should
this information stop. The more
that is given, the more there a risk
of unmerited “health halos” or
of the label backfiring (Wansink
and Chandon, 2006). A Food
and Drug Administration–sponsored committee on the issue of
away-from-home labeling of food
recommended that companies
should stick to calories, the
one common denominator
most commonly understood.
5. Keep it Affordable.
Generally, when prices go up,
consumption goes down. This is
true with meat and potatoes, but
not as true with tempting foods,
like candy, cookies, and ice cream.
Within a reasonable range, when
the price goes up, we either buy
the candy, cookie, or ice cream
anyway because it is indulgent, or
we simply switch to another brand.
One of our lab’s pilot studies
(Wansink, 2006) showed that
increasing the price of selected
vending machine candy caused
people to buy less of that candy.
In the real world, if the price of
a candy bar went up by 25 cents,
people would either pay it, or they
would buy another brand. They
would not stop eating candy.
What is certain is that large
increases in food prices make us
look for other alternatives. It does
not mean that we look for healthier
options. It does not change our
food desires, it just changes where
we would go to buy our French
fries and candy bars. Raising prices
within a reasonable free-market
range does not change behavior,
it penalizes the people with the
,1*,3¡sss*ebp*knc
least money. It would be a return
to rationing for many of them.
The challenge will be to help
make the healthier options more
attractive and more affordable.
We cannot legislate or tax
people into eating Brussels
sprouts. That is not to say that a
smart, well-intentioned marketer
can’t convince them to do so.
.-op?ajpqnuI]ngapejc
The 19th century has been called
the Century of Hygiene—more
lives were saved or extended by
an improved understanding of
hygiene and public health than
by any other single cause. We
learned that rats were not house
pets and that it is a good idea to
wash hands before surgery.
The 20th century was the
Century of Medicine. Vaccines,
antibiotics, transfusions, and
chemotherapy all helped to
contribute to longer, healthier
lives. In 1900, the life expectancy
of an American was 49 years;
in 2000, it was 77 years.
Will the 21st century be the
Century of Behavior Change? Sure,
medicine is still making fundamental
discoveries that can extend lives, but
changing everyday, long-term behavior is the key to adding years and
quality to our lives. This will involve
reducing risky behavior and making
changes in exercise and nutrition.
The more we exercise and the
better we eat, the longer and more
productively we will live. There is
not a prescription that can be written
for such behavior. Eating better and
exercising more are decisions we
need to be motivated to make.
When it comes to contributing
most to the life span and quality of
life in the next several generations,
marketers could be well suited
to effectively help us make the
move. They are in a good position
to develop the products that
make it easier to exercise or eat
more nutritiously. They can also
motivate us to get both of these
done. Our eating habits would be
a good place for them to start. BP
>ne]jS]joejg(Ld*@*(eoLnkbaookn]j`@ena_pkn(?knjahh
Bkk`]j`>n]j`H]^kn]pknu(-,5)---S]nnajD]hh(?knjahh
Qjeranoepu(Epd]_](JU-041/*Lknpekjokbpdeo]npe_had]ra
^aaj]`]lpa`bnkipda]qpdknÑo^kkg(Iej`haooA]pejc6
SduSaA]pIknaPd]jSaPdejg$>]jp]i(.,,2%*
R E F E R E NC E S
Rolls, B.J., Roe, L.S., Kral,
T.V., Meengs, J.S., and Wall,
D.E. 2004. Increasing the
portion size of a packaged snack
increases energy intake in men and
women. Appetite 42(1): 63-69.
Wansink, B. 1996. Can package
size accelerate usage volume?
J. Mktg. 60(3): 1-14.
Wansink, B. 2006. “Mindless Eating: Why We Eat More Than We
Think.” Bantam Dell, New York.
Wansink, B. and Chandon, P.
2006. Can “low-fat” nutrition
labels lead to obesity? J.
Mktg. Res. 43: 605-617.
Wansink, B. and Huckabee, M.
2005. De-marketing obesity.
Calif. Mgmt. Rev. 47: 4, 6-18.
Wansink, B. and Park, S-B.
2002. Sensory suggestiveness and
labeling: Do soy labels bias taste?
J. Sensory Studies 17: 483-491.
Wansink, B. and van Ittersum, K.
2005. Shape of glass and amount of
alcohol poured: Comparative study
of effect of practice and concentration. Brit. Med. J. 331: 1512-1514.
Wansink, B., Painter, J.M.,
and van Ittersum, K. 2001.
Descriptive menu labels’ effect on
sales. Cornell Hotel Restaurant
Admin. Quarterly 42(6): 68-72.
Wansink, B., Painter, J.E., and Lee,
Y-K. 2006. The office candy dish:
Proximity’s influence on estimated
and actual candy consumption,
Intl. J. Obesity 30: 871-875.
Young, L.R. 2005. “The
Portion Teller.” Broadway
Books, New York.
Young, L.R. and Nestle, M.
2002. The contribution of
expanding portion sizes to the
US obesity epidemic. Am. J.
Public Health 92: 246-249.