All other problems having been solved
Research suggests that the proliferation of divergent FOP approaches is likely to be confusing to consumers and ultimately counter-productive. We want to work with the food industry — retailers and manufacturers alike — as well as nutrition and design experts and the Institute of Medicine, to develop an optimal, common approach to nutrition-related FOP and shelf labeling that all Americans can trust and use to build better diets and improve their health.
The recent experience with FOP labeling in the United Kingdom demonstrates the potential of voluntary initiatives to provide consumers helpful FOP labeling. In that instance, the government set certain criteria for the use of such labeling, and retailers took the initiative to implement FOP labeling in their stores. The agency wants to explore the potential of that approach. If voluntary action by the food industry does not result in a common, credible approach to FOP and shelf labeling, we will consider using our regulatory tools toward that end. This effort will include research to assess through consumer studies the likely effects of FOP symbols on information search behavior related to the Nutrition Facts label, which in turn can affect consumer understanding of the full nutrition profile of a product.
Shorter version: “How can we get people to stop eating Oreos and still get money from Nabisco?”
(Via Beth’s Contradictory Brain.)
Jeffro »
15 May 2010 · 10:06 pm
Social engineering at it’s finest. Of course, this time they’ll get it right, because the right people are in charge, or the cause is just, it’s for the children, or the volume is up to eleven, or something.
ak4mc »
15 May 2010 · 10:24 pm
Of course the problem is that all the different brands have all different ideas of what the front of the package should look like. This anarchic riot of color, imagery and brand identity needs to be taken under strict control so as to stop those evil capitalists confusing the consumer with all those choices.
CGHill »
15 May 2010 · 10:29 pm
As Australia will be doing with cigarettes.
unimpressed »
16 May 2010 · 2:28 am
Yeah, right. Just like the stupidity of 85 mph speedometers curtailed excessive speed…..ostrich-think at its “finest”.
ak4mc »
16 May 2010 · 9:47 am
Charles, there was in fact a proposal years ago to do that either here or in Canada (I don’t remember exactly) — which is almost certainly where I got the idea for the non-joke.
fillyjonk »
17 May 2010 · 7:36 am
I expect the ultimate end of this will be talking food labels, that shriek out the calories and fat on every food.
And that is when I will try to grow or hunt all the food I eat, and never set foot in a grocery again. (I wonder if I could get a city variance to own a milch cow?)
canadienne »
17 May 2010 · 9:31 pm
huh, I like knowing the calories, fat and other contents of the food I (usually don’t) buy, although I agree that talking labels would be annoying beyond belief.
CGHill »
17 May 2010 · 9:53 pm
Well, the information is there, in a standardized panel; it’s just that the standardized panel is not on the front of the package, and our government assumes we’re too stupid to turn it 180 degrees.