Hacking Food Labeling Laws

This article talks about new Mexican laws about food labeling, and the lengths to which food manufacturers are going to ensure that they are not effective. There are the typical high-pressure lobbying tactics and lawsuits. But there’s also examples of companies hacking the laws:

Companies like Coca-Cola and Kraft Heinz have begun designing their products so that their packages don’t have a true front or back, but rather two nearly identical labels—except for the fact that only one side has the required warning. As a result, supermarket clerks often place the products with the warning facing inward, effectively hiding it.

[…]

Other companies have gotten creative in finding ways to keep their mascots, even without reformulating their foods, as is required by law. Bimbo, the international bread company that owns brands in the United States such as Entenmann’s and Takis, for example, technically removed its mascot from its packaging. It instead printed the mascot on the actual food product—a ready to eat pancake—and made the packaging clear, so the mascot is still visible to consumers.

Tags: A Hacker's Mind, hacking, marketing, noncomputer hacks

Posted on August 25, 2023 at 7:03 AM • 24 Comments

Comments

Barney Laurance • August 25, 2023 8:10 AM

I wonder if the courts might rule that when the two sides are near identical like this – or generally when either side is usable for attracting customers to pick the product off a shelf – that there are actually two fronts, and therefore the required warning must be on both sides.

Ted • August 25, 2023 10:03 AM

“[The food companies] never stop… They will fight like hell to disrupt anything [aimed at] making that policy successful.”

My work adjusts our health insurance premiums based on 5 metrics: A1C, blood pressure, body composition (BMI), total cholesterol, and a tobacco use attestation.

I’m used to reading food labels and using nutrition trackers. But these actions are definitely not one-and-done activities. Dang, what a multi-faceted issue.

yet another bruce • August 25, 2023 10:26 AM

My favorite is rounding down to zero grams. Zero grams trans fats, zero grams polonium-210.

Winter • August 25, 2023 10:57 AM

Re: My Favorite

My favorite marketing is/was the cholesterol-free banana.
Second is the X% fat-free food.

And I once got the option for a cholesterol-free scrambled eggs. That seems to have been real but I do not know whether this was really 0% cholesterol (and I want my eggs with cholesterol).

Chelloveck • August 25, 2023 11:22 AM

@Winter: I like the ones where the big print proudly proclaims “Does not contain rat droppings!” while the fine print reads “Federal law does not allow any food product to contain rat droppings.” (Substitute any scary chemical name for “rat droppings”.)

R.Burton • August 25, 2023 11:54 AM

In summary, the USA passed a law requiring food manufacturers to minimize cross-contamination with certain allergens that are not listed product ingredients, such as peanuts. A label like “may have come into contact with peanuts” or “made in a facility that processes peanuts” was no longer acceptable, and it was already illegal to list things as ingredients if they might not be present. Companies found that the cheapest way to comply was to reformulate their products, adding peanut flour—for example—as an ingredient.

On the topic of excessively sugary cereal, have people noticed that some cereals (including Kellog’s Raisin Bran) contain sugar-coated raisins? Raisins are already two-thirds sugar by mass!

Winter, I’ve also seen bananas appear on receipts labeled “GF” for gluten-free. And they’re high in sugar when they ripen, so perhaps a grocery store employee should add warning stickers when they turn yellow or brown.

People already mentioned some concerning ingredients in the previous story (about Parmesan), such as gelatin. Animal products where one wouldn’t expect them is a problem many people aren’t even aware of. Certain salad dressings, such as caesar, sometimes contain fish. Sugar production might involve animal bones. The innocent-sounding “confectioner’s glaze” contains insect secretions, whereas “carmine” usually contains crushed insects. All countries should follow India’s lead and require non-vegetarian and non-vegan products to be explicitly and prominently labeled as such. (But, of course, no manufacturer wants people to start questioning why something like candy might be non-vegetarian. Studies have shown people are grossed out by the idea of eating insects, so it’s important that these things can be legally hidden.)

anon • August 25, 2023 3:58 PM

I’m reminded of the movie Clerks, with Jay and Silent Bob*, when the activist plopped, in the truest sense of the word, a cancerous human lung down on the counter. I thought it was quite amusing. Today, the clerk would simply pull out a Glock and 10-ring the bastard, like the Sikh’s and their wooden stick last week in Cali.

I’m with Chris Porter ( search youtube for ‘chris porter ugly and angry’ ), we should stop marketing to stupid people. He and I differ in that I include the unfortunate who are foodstuff intolerant (eg. lactose, nuts, artichokes**, etc)

- pre heart attack Silent Bob.
  ** – not really, but i’m allowed to act offended when questioned about this alergy

TimH • August 25, 2023 4:20 PM

“Federal law does not allow any food product to contain rat droppings.”

Actually, it does.

U. S. Food and Drug Administration
The Food Defect Action Levels

WHEAT FLOUR
Insect filth (AOAC 972.32) Average of 75 or more insect fragments per 50 grams
Rodent filth (AOAC 972.32) Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 50 grams
Rodent hair – post harvest and/or processing contamination with animal hair or excreta.

K • August 25, 2023 5:37 PM

Here is a hack: cigarette makers in Brazil are required by law to display horrific photos on cigarette packages, such as necrotic feet and aborted fetuses, all to remind smokers about the risks they are taking.

Some makers started to display the photo on a card between the package and the outer plastic. The inner package still displays the same photo as the card to comply with the law, but the back of the card is blank. Smokers can then take out the card, turn it to the other side, and put it back in the package to hide the picture.

anon • August 25, 2023 6:24 PM

@TimH here’s the CNN article from 2019 about this very topic:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/04/health/insect-rodent-filth-in-food-wellness/index.html

P Coffman • August 27, 2023 11:47 AM

Something is working. I am obsessed with removing High-Fructose Corn Syrup. Apparently, it cannot be an ingredient with something labeled “Natural”. Still, its packaging may look wholesome enough. Overpay for HFCS outright, or pay more for subtracting HFCS? Consumer has the power. Lowering HFCS can and should happen.

Frankly • August 28, 2023 4:11 AM

In the U.S., a company can lower its “serving size” to the extent that the amount of trans fat is just under 0.5 mg per serving, allowing them to round down to zero and claim “no trans fat” on the label.

Winter • August 28, 2023 6:21 AM

@Frankly

In the U.S., a company can lower its “serving size”

In Europe, the amounts per 100g have always to be listed too.

Hal Taylor • August 28, 2023 12:53 PM

In Europe, the amounts per 100g have always to be listed too.

That’s a good idea, as the serving sizes on American products are often ridiculous—”per 12 [potato] chips” being the worst I’ve seen. Apparently, though, the amounts are set by the regulators and not the manufacturers (excepting regulatory capture), and they’re ridiculous because they’re an intentional compromise between the amount that people actually eat (or did in 1993) and the amount they “should” eat. Perversely, then: the more unhealthy the product, the more likely it is to be “trans-fat-free” or “fat-free” purely by virtue of unrealistic serving size.

Hal Taylor • August 28, 2023 3:37 PM

printed the mascot on the actual food product… and made the packaging clear

Couldn’t one do something like this for any product, simply by using clear packaging with something like a “collectible” mascot trading card visible? Alternately, they could provide stickers for the grocery stores to set beside the product and encourage customers to take—maybe even leave several different solid shapes on the package so kids could make a game of applying stickers in the correct places.

visitor • August 28, 2023 7:07 PM

@Moderator: Please see spam comment shown as August 28, 2023 1:23 PM, starting with “There are so many great ways” (… to drop unwelcome and disallowed spam into a forum!).

PaulBart • August 30, 2023 8:36 AM

“In summary, the USA passed a law requiring food manufacturers to minimize cross-contamination with certain allergens that are not listed product ingredients, such as peanuts. A label like “may have come into contact with peanuts” or “made in a facility that processes peanuts” was no longer acceptable, and it was already illegal to list things as ingredients if they might not be present. Companies found that the cheapest way to comply was to reformulate their products, adding peanut flour—for example—as an ingredient.”

I <3 the state. Finding more ways to make itself bigger and more useless.
If I care about a product being peanut free, I will find a package that states product is free from peanuts and safe for those to consume with peanut allergies, and pay accordingly.

Have a gluten allergy, find your products, pay accordingly.

Winter • August 30, 2023 9:23 AM

@PaulBart

If I care about a product being peanut free, I will find a package that states product is free from peanuts and safe for those to consume with peanut allergies, and pay accordingly.

Given the sensitivity and severity of peanut allergies [1], this will not work. If peanuts have been processed in the same building, the amount of peanut dust in the food can still be deadly and next to undetectable at the same time. Without a law, no company will even try to do that as they can always easily deny there was any peanut allergen in their product and not in something else the victim consumed.

As our host is wont to tell: Safety requires regulation (laws). Without laws, there will not be safe choices [2]. Without food labeling laws there is no way consumers can evaluate any claims about allergens in food.

[1] People with a peanut allergy can die when someone just eats peanuts in their vicinity.

[2] Safety and Security are Lemons Markets. Consumers are unable to evaluate the quality of the products they are buying and will not pay a higher price for quality.
‘https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lemons-problem.asp

Clive Robinson • August 30, 2023 12:00 PM

@ PaulBart, Winter, ALL,

Re : You can not buy that which is not for sale, nor buy that which is beyond what you can pay.

“If I care about a product being peanut free, I will find a package that states product is free from peanuts and safe for those to consume with peanut allergies, and pay accordingly.”

For the reasons @Winter explains you won’t be able to buy such products because they can not lawfully be made.

So where do you go?

It’s why a certain person raised the price of Epi-Pens a thousand percent as well as shortening the shelf life. There were three results,

1, People started making their own illicint epi-pens, out of need.
2, Due to the individuals behaviour there was a public outcry.
3, Politicians embarrassed into acting by the outcry, found other ways to bring down the individual.

Did it bring the price of epi-prns down to a sensible economic range in the US?

Of course not… The last time I checked they were around $700 each pack of two, where as they can be made for as little as $3 each injector…

https://www.drugs.com/article/epipen-cost-alternatives.html

In the UK the dates are surprisingly quite a bit longer and the price from that $700 manufacture is less than $85 and set to go down as alternatives made in India that have just as high a quality are much closer to the basic manufacturing cost.

The same nonsense goes on with Insulin, I’ll let you look up the over $20,000/year on that ($300/vial only lasting 5days for some).

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47491964

Then there are those that get shot as innocent victims going into lifetime debt and not having a life, let alone the continuing medical assistence they require.

Yet bosses of drug firms are putting 400million or more in their pocket each year, then there are the bosses of those entirely pointless health insurance companies that take the odd trillions “off the top” with entirely pointless staff taking every opportunity to deny people healthcare…

Even a few ill people in such a society makes all of society sick…

And yes I’ve heard all the pathetic arguments for the system, and none of them are valid…

JonKnowsNothing • August 30, 2023 12:24 PM

@Winter, @PaulBart, All

re: Food Safety Rules need Definitions. Definitions are: ????

Under the sliding scale of regulations comes definitions. Commonly accepted definitions won’t and don’t work. (see NSA ruling about Relevant == All)

Within the context of food we have an entire culinary world of definitions and few are suitable for regulation use. It’s not just Metric v Imperial v Volumetric scales.

If you scan the supermarket shelves you will see many labels with nouns and adjectives applied to the product. Much of these are counted as “Puffery” in the USA. (1)

Current court cases about the “size of a hamburger on a display add” at fast food restaurants will likely come down to puffery as a defense. The burger in the ad is photographed zoomed in and arranged to appear large. What you get in hand, doesn’t quite match the picture but probably has all the stated items. In the picture the items are pushed towards the camera view, while in hand they are spread out on the bun.

It’s more than just puffery, it’s also down to specific detail

What is the difference between Jam, Spread, Preserves, Jelly, Fruit Butter?

By culinary recipes there are differences, along with geographic and cultural variations in them, but this is not sufficient for Rules and Regulations.

In the USA there are rules about what goes in the jar or packet of “jam” but they are not On Display at the Jam Aisle in the store or market. We can only go by the label or if a clear glass container we might be able to see the contents.

It is in the nature of business to tout a cheaper product as being as good as a more expensive product to gain market share. The ideal is the PE ratio of the lesser product begins in a better ROI than if had they made the better product in the first place.

If you want to really get a good look at regulations and international trade restraints look at Bar Codes and ID Codes and other required scanning codes. These have nothing whatsoever to do with the contents of the package, but you cannot sell in large quantities if you do not have them. You have to buy the use of them, for every item, size, and variation you want to sell.

(2)

Oranges and lemons,
Say the bells of St. Clement’s.

Pancakes and fritters,
Say the bells of St. Peter’s.

===

1) h ttps://en.wikipedia.o r g/wiki/Puffery

In colloquial language, puffery refers to exaggerated or false praise.

2) ht tps://en.wikipedia. o r g/wiki/Oranges_and_Lemons

(url fractured)

JonKnowsNothing • August 30, 2023 12:53 PM

@All

re: [designing] packages don’t have a true front or back, but rather two nearly identical labels

There is a non-nefarious reason for this, which you might not know unless you did a stint of shelf stocking in your career.

In markets the label must be Front Facing. Why? Because that’s what the shoppers are looking at. They are looking at the label.

Shoppers also pick up the item, look at it and decide to put it back. Mostly they put it back anywhere in the store, where ever they decide to remove it from their cart, but some are nice enough to put it back in the same spot. But they do not put it back Front Facing.

The store shelf stocker has to find all the rotated items and turn them around to be Front Facing. They usually do this when restocking that item. They move all the product to the front edge, trying to minimize gaps, and rotate all the items to be Front Facing.

If there isn’t any difference between “front and back”, that take less time to stock the shelf.

fwiw:

Modern stores all have RFID and location trackers to follow product inside the store. They know you dropped the extra jar of ketchup in the bakery department and you set down the packet of frozen peas next to the paper towels.

Nearly all the big markets have outsourced shelf stocking to large companies. You can see them at work but they are not employed by the market.

For some items, they take a picture of the display area when they arrive. It will show the disarrangement and the missing stock. This is uploaded to their corporate system that analyses the image and returns a blueprint of what what the display case should look like when finished. It contains a detailed set of instructions on how many items to put out and rearrangement of product based on previous sales, upcoming sales, product push. All the stocker has do to is: follow the pictures.

When done, they take another image and upload it. The system confirms the match or returns additional changes.

One thing will be universal: Labels are Front Facing or Up Facing

Hal Taylor • August 30, 2023 1:28 PM

Re: “size of a hamburger on a display” and definitions:

In common usage, the mass noun “hamburger” refers to a specific type of ground-beef formulation often defined by law; the countable nouns “a hamburger” or “a burger”, and their plural forms, refer to types of sandwiches, expected to be served warm, made from patties. Patties for “hamburgers” must be “hamburger” as defined, whereas a “burger” patty could be almost any edible thing of similar shape (possibly chicken or fish, maybe no meat at all).

Almost every package of “burgers” sold in the USA is fraudulent: they’ll say something like “includes 4 burgers”, and show pictures of burgers—sandwiches—when, in fact, they usually only include patties: possibly “hamburger”, but not “hamburgers” or “burgers”. (Some, however, do come in sandwich form, with buns.)

Some years ago there was an invented-for-humor internet conspiracy theory that “bird’s don’t exist”. They do, but it turns out that “vegetables” kind of don’t: they’re not an “opposite of fruit”, as is commonly believed, but a category of food with no agreed legal or even colloquial definition. If people heat it and eat it for dinner, and don’t generally consider it a “nut”, “grain”, or “fruit”—even if, like the tomato, it is—they’ll probably call it a vegetable. Probably; court cases have been fought over this.

Garabaldi • August 30, 2023 3:29 PM

@JonKnowsNothing • August 30, 2023 12:53 PM

re: [designing] packages don’t have a true front or back, but rather two nearly identical labels

There is a non-nefarious reason for this, which you might not know unless you did a stint of shelf stocking in your career.

Except with the hack the front and back are only “nearly identical” with a selective definition of “nearly identical”. E.g. the front pictures a diseased lung, the back pictures a manly man blowing smoke rings. Not “nearly identical” by common meaning. This can only be viewed as nefarious. It does not save the shelf stockers any time since they are instructed to put manly man facing outward.

An Aldi style package that has the identical blackened lung on all sides would be non-nefarious. The difference is pretty clear to anyone whose livelihood does not depend on not understanding.

JonKnowsNothing • August 30, 2023 3:34 PM

@Garabaldi

re: Different fronts and different backs and not identical

As you point out, if they are different in layout, font, size, wording this is not the same as having identical fronts and backs.

Good catch.

Hacking Food Labeling Laws

Comments

Leave a comment Cancel reply