Labels for Life

The labels on our food exist in a complex political struggle over consumers’ attention. Xaq Frohlich walks us through the information infrastructure of the label and its impact on our “choices.

Accounting for taste : regulating food labeling in the "affluent society," 1945-1995

Thesis (Ph. D. in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society (HASTS))--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Program in Science, Technology and Society, 2011.Cataloged from PDF version of thesis.Includes bibliographical references (p. 456-493).This dissertation traces a transformation in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's governance of food markets during the second half of the 20th century. In response to new correlations between diet and risk of disease, anxieties about (over)abundant food supplies, and changing notions of personal versus collective responsibility in an affluent society, the FDA changed how it regulated food labeling. Following WWII, the agency developed a set of standard recipes with fixed common name labels (such as "peanut butter" or "tomato soup"), or "standards of identity," for all mass-produced foods. However, the appearance of new diet foods and public health concerns undermined this system. Beginning in the 1970s, the FDA shifted its policies. Rather than rely on standardized identities, the agency required companies to provide informative labels such as the ingredients panel, nutrition labels, and various science-based health claims. Agency officials believed that such information would enable consumers to make responsible health decisions through market purchases. Food labeling is explored as a regulatory assemblage that draws together a variety of political, legal, corporate, and technoscientific interests and practices. The five chapters are organized chronologically. The first two describe how a shift in focus among nutrition scientists from concern for the undernourished to a concern with overeating led to the introduction onto the market of engineered foods capitalizing off popular interest in diet and health. A middle chapter describes a series of institutional scandals that generated the political animus to change the FDA's system, and registered a broader "shock of recognition" that Americans' views about food and food politics had changed. The final two chapters describe the introduction of "Nutrition Information" labeling in the 1970s and the mandatory "Nutrition Facts" panel in the 1990s. By looking at the regulation of labels as a kind of public-private infrastructure for information, the turn to compositional labeling can be understood not merely as a shift in representation-from whole foods to foods as nutrients-but more broadly as a retooling of food markets to embed notions about personal responsibility for health into the ways that food was designed, marketed, and consumed.by Xaq Zachary Frohlich.Ph.D.in History, Anthropology, and Science, Technology and Society (HAST

Imaginer des consommateurs, constituer les sujets : l’étiquetage nutritionnel aux états-Unis, 1945-1995

Récemment, les chercheurs ont tenté de s’éloigner de ces grands récits polarisateurs en mettant l’accent sur le rôle de médiateurs experts, tels que les spécialistes des consommateurs ou les arbitres du goût (Cowan, 1995 ; Blaszczyk, 2000 ; Kline, 2000 ; Schot & Bruheze, 2002). Ils examinent les outils ou les astuces que ces agents intermédiaires utilisent pour déterminer les goûts populaires, ainsi que leur position au sein des organisations de l’industrie, et donc leur influence sur les déc..

Montrer le marché. Afficher, emballer, étiqueter

L’information économique, environnementale et sanitaire est à l’affiche. D’un côté, on assiste à l’affirmation d’un consommateur de plus en plus actif à la recherche d’appuis cognitifs susceptibles de soutenir son engagement dans l’action. De l’autre, les acteurs institutionnels publics ou privés tentent de porter leur voix sous forme d’affichage, d’emballage ou d’étiquettes. Paradoxalement, ces deux mouvements sont à la fois convergents et contradictoires : est-il possible de concilier des formes de communication descendante et unilatérale avec l’expression de publics en quête d’interactivité ? Telle est l’une des questions qu’aborde ce numéro sur les dispositifs sociotechniques d’affichage, d’emballage et d’étiquetage. Les supports informationnels à destination des publics forment des espaces ambigus, où se croisent et se combinent souvent les voix des régulateurs et des acteurs de l’offre, du droit et du marché. Pour aborder ces supports et en saisir les enjeux, il convient d’en éclairer l’histoire, d’en explorer les formes, de s’interroger sur l’agencement des différents niveaux d’inscription (de l’affichage à l’étiquette, en passant par l’emballage et la signalétique), de rendre compte du jeu des régulations publiques et des initiatives privées, de l’investissement de l’étiquetage par les consommateurs comme lieu d’information consumériste ou d’expression politique, voire d’examiner l’émergence de formats informationnels nouveaux, largement soutenus par les nouvelles technologies (smartphones, sites internet) qui semblent sortir l’affichage de plus d’un siècle de communication unilatérale et asymétrique pour l’ouvrir à des formes inédites d’interaction avec les usagers

Cultivating intellectual community in academia: reflections from the Science and Technology Studies Food and Agriculture Network (STSFAN).

Scholarship flourishes in inclusive environments where open deliberations and generative feedback expand both individual and collective thinking. Many researchers, however, have limited access to such settings, and most conventional academic conferences fall short of promises to provide them. We have written this Field Report to share our methods for cultivating a vibrant intellectual community within the Science and Technology Studies Food and Agriculture Network (STSFAN). This is paired with insights from 21 network members on aspects that have allowed STSFAN to thrive, even amid a global pandemic. Our hope is that these insights will encourage others to cultivate their own intellectual communities, where they too can receive the support they need to deepen their scholarship and strengthen their intellectual relationships