The Hartman Group's Harvey Hartman writes Hartman's researchers have always been puzzled by the numerous -- and at times bizarre -- attempts to communicate alleged healthfulness of a given food or food product through systematic, rational schemas and symbols designed as a sort of "lowest common denominator" shorthand for naive, health-minded consumers.

In a recent column, he noted, "We've argued before that the FDA's peculiar obsession with crafting ever more complex food pyramids to address the national concern with obesity would likely lead to the opposite of the intended result. By encouraging consumers to eat more scientifically -- according to arcane, arbitrary guidelines crafted by unknown entities -- folks will eventually lose interest and return to their self-interested eating patterns."

A similar pattern happened in the case of smoking. For more than 30 years, the government tried every method imaginable to convince people to stop smoking. Warning labels, frightening symbols, PSAs, commercials, banning advertising on television and so forth. But it was only recently, when our culture decided we would no longer tolerate smoking indoors and look upon smokers as social pariahs, that smoking rates have plummeted.

And while on the subject of visual and symbolic communication of health attributes, Hartman noted he was not at all surprised by the controversy surrounding the Smart Choices program.

"To be certain, the program arose from the best of intentions. We believe that manufacturers truly do want to help consumers make nutritionally sound choices. The problem is that the program demonstrated little understanding of the consumers' own approaches to healthful eating," he writes. "In the end, there is no escaping the abject paternalism implied by the 'We just need to help them' approach. Talk to them like adolescents and, not surprisingly, they'll react to you like an adult who just doesn't get it. This is also why adults look so foolish when they try to avail themselves of current youthful trends."

Hartman followed up with this:

"Fact #1: The vast, vast majority of consumers believe that ingredients and food products in boxes, cans and plastic bags are not as healthy as freshly prepared foods.

Fact #2: The consumer has little to no interest in the manufacturer's or retailer's moral ideology with regard to what is or is not healthy food.

Of course, Fact #1 above may not be scientifically correct, but that doesn't matter because we are dealing with consumer perceptions. You may have science on your side, but consumers aren't particularly interested in your science -- or, for that matter, your moral ideology regarding what is and isn't healthy food.

The good news for those in the food business is that even though most consumers hold these perceptions, they are more than willing to ignore them on many, if not most, occasions. The simple fact remains that most consumers rarely choose to cook from scratch with only fresh ingredients. Usually there is always a need for a packaged food product, either as an ingredient or a staple to a meal.

Similarly, despite the best of intentions on behalf of manufacturers, retailers or health policy advocates, we self-interested American consumers have little patience for your high-minded morals regarding healthfulness. This is because we have our own agendas regarding what is -- and is not -- healthy to eat, agendas that we also ignore with glee on a variety of occasions!

So, when food manufacturers or retailers seek to communicate fine gradations in alleged healthfulness of ingredients or food products (green, yellow or red lights; checkmark, etc.), we mostly just ignore them. We do so not because we do not like them. Rather, these efforts simply aren't relevant to us. It is true that consumers will demonstrate interest in these efforts in surveys and focus groups. But this is largely because to do otherwise would seem foolish, and there is no cost to supporting this moral imperative in such contexts. The one bright spot here is that the brand team's decision to move forward with such symbolic communications strategies will likely have little negative impact on sales, largely because they will be ignored.

Our critics will respond in two common refrains. Some will argue that consumers need help making sound nutritional choices and the manufacturer or retailer who offers that help will be thusly rewarded. Our answer here is not to debate whether or not consumers need help, but to suggest that they have their own moral criteria -- their own definition of healthful eating -- and any attempt to reach out in this direction runs the risk of appearing, at best, irrelevant; at worst, paternalistic.

Another frequent view suggests that by creating informed consumers, they will make "better choices." As we've witnessed in many other realms of society (casinos, sports coaching, equities markets, etc.), you can give them all of the information in the world and they are still going to make their choice. Right or wrong as it may be, the decision is theirs."

Excerpt reprinted with permission from "Despite All of the Panels, Pictures, Symbols and Gold Stars … Ya Gotta Eat"