Would You Eat More Beets If They Were Called "Dynamite Beets"?

June 26, 2017

Making vegetables seem sexy, rather than healthy, actually makes them sell better, a team of researchers has found.

In a study conducted at Stanford University, researchers found that using “indulgent, exciting, and delicious descriptors” in the campus cafeteria (which serves undergrads, graduate students, and staff alike) was directly correlated with higher vegetable consumption—and might even lead to greater satisfaction after the meal.

During the fall 2016 semester at Stanford, the cafeteria served one featured vegetable with four different labels: basic, healthy restrictive, healthy positive, or indulgent. Not surprisingly, the indulgent labels—with words like “sizzlin’,” “slow-roasted,” “rich,” “buttery,” and “caramelized”—moved the most vegetables, both in terms of selection and actual consumption.

Basic labels simply identified the vegetable, healthy restrictive labels used words like “reduced sodium” and “lighter choice,” while “vitamin-rich” and “nutritious” were used as healthy positive labels. There was no significant difference in the amount of vegetables sold during days of healthy restrictive, healthy positive, or basic labeling — but when vegetables were labeled indulgently, they sold 25 percent better than basic vegetables, 41 percent better than healthy restrictive, and 35 percent better than healthy positive.

Shop the Story

During the entire experiment, there was no difference in the actual method of preparation for the vegetables, and informed consent was even waived by the university review board, meaning that students were completely unaware that their eating habits were being observed. Overall, the study essentially confirms what plenty of marketing agencies know about sales—it’s all in the pitch.

"We think that the indulgent labeling aligns more with people's motivations," Brad Turnwald, a doctoral psychology student at Stanford and the lead paper’s lead author, told CNN. "That they're looking for something tasty when they want to eat. And that's why it works."

If you think about it, it’s not just vegetables that benefit from a dose of good vocabulary. Who among us wouldn’t prefer “oven-roasted chicken, stuffed with lemon and herbs” over “lean and low-sodium baked chicken?” It’s hard to imagine people lining up to eat the latter, which is something much of the food industry has already figured out. Here’s hoping this study ushers in the end of menu descriptors like “heart-healthy” and “low-cholesterol”—no one wants to hear it. Bring on the searing and the sizzling.

Order now

The Food52 Vegan Cookbook is here! With this book from Gena Hamshaw, anyone can learn how to eat more plants (and along the way, how to cook with and love cashew cheese, tofu, and nutritional yeast).

Order now

See what other Food52 readers are saying.

  • BerryBaby
  • 702551
Karen Lo

Written by: Karen Lo

lunch lady


BerryBaby June 27, 2017
Times sure have changed, people influenced by how the dish is described? Menus use to state what the food was, not a short story describing it. Less words are more appealing to me. I don't need a list of adjectives telling me about it. JMO
702551 June 26, 2017
I wouldn't put too much faith into this study because its statistically limited nature.

The study focuses on a very, Very, *VERY* narrow demographic: Stanford students. That is a fair narrow age range and even a more narrow socio-economic range. This is one of the most prestigious private universities on the planet and the undergraduate population is small (maybe seven or eight thousand students?). There is no hope of a statistically significant diverse sample size with a Stanford survey.

Moreover, this is one of the richest, most privileged and gifted overall communities in the USA. It's great, I live within commuting distance of Stanford, but by no means can I make any conclusions about how people should want to eat based on what people at Stanford want to eat.

It's great that many in the Stanford community want to eat fresh veggies but guess what? IT STARTED AS A FARM. There's really no surprise that Stanford folk want good fresh food. This is not some sort of new development, plus the marketing lingo used to tart up the produce isn't a revelation. This is Silicon Valley, folks here thrive/expect people to talk things up (paging Steve Jobs, please pick up the white courtesy phone in Heaven if you can).

Come to NorCal and then realize how inane this study is.

Sure, Stanford kiddies and the local community can be influenced by fancy marketing speak. That's not a new strategy, clever marketers have been doing that since the beginning of time.