| |
Comments | Main >
In the spirit of Geranimals
| 1.27.2007
So we're well into the new years and we all have resolutions for something we want to accomplish (or not) going forward. Actually, I don't believe in NYRs. You should do what you want (or need) all times of the year. However, it just so happens that I've been vetting health clubs for a while now and have settled on one. As you health freaks know, diet goes hand in hand with good exercise regiments. So I've started eating healthier - no coke, cookies, processed anything. Only high protein and good fats for my "temple." I've found myself looking at food labels for everything I'm interested in eating including an Altoid Mint (I only had one - Scout's honor). I use to make fun of people who did that and it's with great sentiment that I apologize. The problem with our food labeling system is that it's not easily scannable. Sure, you can check out calories but what about the different types of fat and proteins and vitamins. Most people are not mathematicians and have more questions after looking at a label.
I started researching other nutrition info-graphic paradigms and while nothing on the horizon in this country, the UK has a couple of models that are being hotly debated. The first is called "The Traffic Light System" which uses 3 different colors to let shoppers intuitively (and critics argue, emotively) interpret the health information for a particular product letting you know if the food has small, medium or high amounts of fats, sugars, calories, salt, saturates, etc. The system uses traffic light colors (green for low, amber for medium and red for high) to help you make your choices. The problem with this system (as the food manufacturers state it) is that people will be too quick to make their choice (probably healthier) and the system doesn't let the shopper get passed a color (probably red) in order to really make an informed choice.
 
The other competing model is called the GDA system. This uses labels that show percentages of sugar, salt, fat and calories in each serving. Proponents of this system say it's more informative and simpler. An example would be cheese which has a high level of saturated fat which under the GDS system (through percentages) shows that a small portion isn't unhealthy. Under the Traffic Light System, it would be colored red. Opponents of this system say that most people don't have the math or inclination to interpret percentages on a daily intake level. They say the Traffic Light System is useful and informative at a glance.


So the debate rages on. Our food labels are by far the hardest to understand which is why so many health and calorie charting sites have cropped up. I'm not usually one for compromise but a mixture of the two would be interesting. As a creative, I'd love to have a shot at designing an info graphic system - maybe one that's more to the point about the end result. Where I work, there is a person who when asked if she wanted some birthday cake, slapped the back of her ass and said "Are you kidding? This is where the cake always goes to on me." Point taken. I had the piece for her (before New years). Maybe something as simple as an icon of a rotten tooth on sweet cereals or a dead fly on fatty snacks...bon appetite.
 Labels: diet, info graphics, nutrition, traffic light system
posted at 4:43 PM

 |
0 Comments: |

|
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment