7 ms·

I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed.

I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Of course companies would protest, claiming that their recipes are trade secrets, but we already require that products list their ingredients, and we protect trademarks for products, which seems unreasonable if companies can alter the contents of what is being protected, without telling customers. To be clear, though, I'm not actually advocating that the labels report precise amounts of each ingredient, but they should be forced to say something like "40% more salt" or "70% more water", at least next to the ingredients, and "New recipe" on the front (as many products already do).

Proven 7y ago
> I'd also like to see a law passed that requires So your "contribution" would be to use the threat of force to make producers spend even more money to redesign more complex labels which, all other things being equal, would result in even an smaller quantity of a product for the same price? Congratulations, you're qualified to work for government (or The Economist)!
ekianjo 7y ago
> I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Ridiculous proposition. Formulations change pretty much constantly for various reasons (ingredients become more expensive, or you change suppliers, or you decide to adjust something to make the product better or cheaper or both), and adding bureaucratic friction as well as packaging redesign is completely impractical. Packaging can take several weeks if not month to produce and you would have to constantly throw them away with this kind of rule. Wasteful.
- unimployed 7y ago
  Ok, but what is your better suggestion to solve the problem of quality or content creep that affects consumers and economic data? Perhaps there is a good way to have consumers be informed, or perhaps there isn’t. But at the very least, accurate data for economic statistics should be available since that same kind of data is available at batch levels for safety and compliance purposes.
- dbskdb 7y ago
  As a consumer I rather like it when I know how much filler is added in my products 1. I want to be able to compare w other brands 2. I don’t want any filler at all! If chocolate goes up in price, I’ll pay more to get the real stuff, or buy less of it. I most certainly won’t buy a bar of food wax with chocolate solids, or whatever Hershey is
  - ekianjo 7y ago
    > As a consumer I rather like it when I know how much filler is added in my products Depends where you live but many brands actually indicate their content of chocolate directly on the box (70%, 80% etc... unless you buy milk chocolate. As for not wanting any filler at all: then buy pure cocoa beans! If you buy processed food you should always assume there is some kind of "filler". And not that "fillers" are also necessary sometimes to give a proper texture to what you eat and make sure the taste is consistent from one box to another.
- damnyou 7y ago
  You could solve the packaging issue by putting a sticker on the package. Large manufacturers will be fine, there's no particular reason for society to care about their wellbeing so much.
  - petre 7y ago
    "Now 20% less!”
    - dc90 7y ago
      "Now 20% lighter!"
      - randomchar999 7y ago
        "Now 20% less calories!" ??
    - anticensor 7y ago
      Not a good news ?!!!
- tzs 7y ago
  That's wrong in regard to food labels. If the formulation has changed in a way that makes those already printed labels inaccurate, they already have to throw them away to comply with Federal law and FDA rules. All dane-pgp's proposed law would change is that when they change the labels to match the new formulation, which they must do, they would have to include a change date or a version number of something like that on the new label.
  - everybodyknows 7y ago
    A "last-modified" date on the standard nutritional info would be great pro-consumer regulation. Now if we could only get a "roasted-on" date requirement for coffee ...
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    > All dane-pgp's proposed law would change is that when they change the labels to match the new formulation, which they must do, they would have to include a change date or a version number of something like that on the new label. The proposal was a lot more aggressive than that -- dane-pgp specified that the packaging must mention if the ingredients stay the same but their relative proportions change. Under current law, there is no reason to alter the labeling for such a change[1], so you'd be seeing a huge requirement for new labels that weren't formerly required. [1] Actually, there are two. First, you might switch up the relative proportions so much that the rank order of the absolute amounts changes, which would require reprinting the ingredients list. This is really unlikely. Second, you might end up altering the Nutrition Facts information. That would also require relabeling. I don't know how likely that is; the Nutrition Facts panel is a pretty low-resolution instrument.
andrewf 7y ago
Around 15 years ago, the price of cocoa shifted significantly relative to hazelnuts. (I forget which one actually moved in absolute terms) Cue worse-tasting chocolate bars showing up in the stores, proudly proclaiming on their wrappers: NOW WITH MORE HAZELNUTS.
jfoster 7y ago
Relative to when? Is it good for a consumer to even care how a product used to be? Isn't time of purchase the time that truly matters?
- itnlfal 7y ago
  Future planning heavily depends on deciphering trends.
colechristensen 7y ago
Products diluted with water are hard to do, but I have no problem with government standardization of, say, the length of toilet paper on a roll. Maybe it doesn't even need to be a law but a tiny tax on nonstandard sizes (0.1%, enough to drive profit-seeking towards standards)
- cadence- 7y ago
  The irony is that one of the big reasons Brexit is even happening is because people in U.K. don’t like the fact that EU standardizes everything. They don’t seem to understand that this is being done to protect them from exactly this shrinkflation that is now going to be used by big companies to compensate for the negative results of Brexit.
  - petre 7y ago
    They never signed up for being part of the EU. The UK joined the EC. Maybe they should stay in the EEA and everything would be fine, but even that has too many restrictive rules now that the English are unable to skirt. Like freedom of movement for goods and for people.
    - derriz 7y ago
      This is a Brexit lie based on a superficial change of name - the constitutional basis of the European Union is specified in the 1957 treaty of Rome and the later Maastricht treaty (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome). The treaty of Rome explicitly states that the goal is the creation of a single market for goods, labour, services, and capital. This was the foundation of the union that the UK voted to join by plebiscite in the 1970s. The UK - a representative democracy - also ratified the subsequent Maastricht Treaty by democratically elected parliament. The idea that the British people were somehow subjected to a “bait and switch” con job is simply a fabrication and demonstrates historical ignorance.
      - dfawcus 7y ago
GuB-42 7y ago
So you mean listing the change on already mandatory information. Note that a lot can be told just looking at the label, but few people do it. For example quality meats tend to have more protein, quality diary products tend to to have more fat. High salt and sugar is usually a bad sign. The order of ingredients is important too: greatest amount first. It means that if the thing they advertise in front of the package is way down the list, that's not good.
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > It means that if the thing they advertise in front of the package is way down the list, that's not good. Certain strong flavors, like mint, pepper, and lemon, usually appear pretty low in the ingredients list at the same time they're headlining the label.
  - ethbro 7y ago
    If you have time, perusing ingredient lists for products at the grocery store is fascinating. I got in the habit trying to avoid palm oil, but there's all kinds of surprises in there. Not in the "I'm shocked there are chemicals in my food" way. But just in the transparent differences in formulation by weight. Check out marinades / BBQ sauces and baked beans.
    - thaumasiotes 7y ago
      In the case of the strong flavors I mentioned, I think it's appropriate. They headline the label because that's what the food tastes like. It just doesn't take much peppermint oil to create a really strong flavor.
- tzs 7y ago
  A friend of mine found a great example of this. She got a packaged snack item that consisted of some bread sticks and some yellow cheese or cheese-like dip. The front of the package prominently declared "Made With Real Cheese!". When she read the ingredients list, not only was cheese way down on the list--it was on the bread ingredients list, not the "cheese" dip ingredients list.
Bombthecat 7y ago
So much this! I could swear that cheese in germany adds more and more.. Water or so and taste less and less like cheese..
- skrebbel 7y ago
  To be fair, German cheese never tasted much like cheese.
pas 7y ago
There would be new products only, no "changed" ones to circumvent this.
kingludite 7y ago
I would like to see some qr code pointing at an ever expanding list of data. I imagine a game where every 3 months 1% tax is added that can be waved if some new data set is exposed to the customer. Its terrible how disconnected we are from the things that sustain us. There are so many companies involved in producing something simple. We can gradually expose the consumers to all these business processes we've accumulated over many thousands of years. I think it could be mind blowing in many ways. People aslo behave different if someone might be looking. Investors get a tour of the facility and everything seems designed for them rather than for the customer. I've seen places remove chairs and force everyone to stand all day simply because it looked good to investors. Open floor plans anyone? From an investor perspective the less room for livestock the better. Salaries cant possibly be low enough. etc Have them make [say] a nice video showing the production process. Have some fancy committee sign of on it. Or if the product is to embarrassed to show how it's made have it pay the 1% extra taxes.

Proven 7y ago

> I'd also like to see a law passed that requires So your "contribution" would be to use the threat of force to make producers spend even more money to redesign more complex labels which, all other things being equal, would result in even an smaller quantity of a product for the same price? Congratulations, you're qualified to work for government (or The Economist)!

ekianjo 7y ago

> I'd also like to see a law passed that requires each product to mention on its packaging if its ingredients (even just their relative proportions) have changed. This would apply to things like foods/drinks and also cleaning products. Ridiculous proposition. Formulations change pretty much constantly for various reasons (ingredients become more expensive, or you change suppliers, or you decide to adjust something to make the product better or cheaper or both), and adding bureaucratic friction as well as packaging redesign is completely impractical. Packaging can take several weeks if not month to produce and you would have to constantly throw them away with this kind of rule. Wasteful.

unimployed 7y ago
Ok, but what is your better suggestion to solve the problem of quality or content creep that affects consumers and economic data? Perhaps there is a good way to have consumers be informed, or perhaps there isn’t. But at the very least, accurate data for economic statistics should be available since that same kind of data is available at batch levels for safety and compliance purposes.
dbskdb 7y ago
As a consumer I rather like it when I know how much filler is added in my products 1. I want to be able to compare w other brands 2. I don’t want any filler at all! If chocolate goes up in price, I’ll pay more to get the real stuff, or buy less of it. I most certainly won’t buy a bar of food wax with chocolate solids, or whatever Hershey is
- ekianjo 7y ago
  > As a consumer I rather like it when I know how much filler is added in my products Depends where you live but many brands actually indicate their content of chocolate directly on the box (70%, 80% etc... unless you buy milk chocolate. As for not wanting any filler at all: then buy pure cocoa beans! If you buy processed food you should always assume there is some kind of "filler". And not that "fillers" are also necessary sometimes to give a proper texture to what you eat and make sure the taste is consistent from one box to another.
damnyou 7y ago
You could solve the packaging issue by putting a sticker on the package. Large manufacturers will be fine, there's no particular reason for society to care about their wellbeing so much.
- petre 7y ago
  "Now 20% less!”
  - dc90 7y ago
    "Now 20% lighter!"
    - randomchar999 7y ago
      "Now 20% less calories!" ??
  - anticensor 7y ago
    Not a good news ?!!!
tzs 7y ago
That's wrong in regard to food labels. If the formulation has changed in a way that makes those already printed labels inaccurate, they already have to throw them away to comply with Federal law and FDA rules. All dane-pgp's proposed law would change is that when they change the labels to match the new formulation, which they must do, they would have to include a change date or a version number of something like that on the new label.
- everybodyknows 7y ago
  A "last-modified" date on the standard nutritional info would be great pro-consumer regulation. Now if we could only get a "roasted-on" date requirement for coffee ...
- thaumasiotes 7y ago
  > All dane-pgp's proposed law would change is that when they change the labels to match the new formulation, which they must do, they would have to include a change date or a version number of something like that on the new label. The proposal was a lot more aggressive than that -- dane-pgp specified that the packaging must mention if the ingredients stay the same but their relative proportions change. Under current law, there is no reason to alter the labeling for such a change[1], so you'd be seeing a huge requirement for new labels that weren't formerly required. [1] Actually, there are two. First, you might switch up the relative proportions so much that the rank order of the absolute amounts changes, which would require reprinting the ingredients list. This is really unlikely. Second, you might end up altering the Nutrition Facts information. That would also require relabeling. I don't know how likely that is; the Nutrition Facts panel is a pretty low-resolution instrument.

andrewf 7y ago

Around 15 years ago, the price of cocoa shifted significantly relative to hazelnuts. (I forget which one actually moved in absolute terms) Cue worse-tasting chocolate bars showing up in the stores, proudly proclaiming on their wrappers: NOW WITH MORE HAZELNUTS.

jfoster 7y ago

Relative to when? Is it good for a consumer to even care how a product used to be? Isn't time of purchase the time that truly matters?

itnlfal 7y ago
Future planning heavily depends on deciphering trends.

colechristensen 7y ago

Products diluted with water are hard to do, but I have no problem with government standardization of, say, the length of toilet paper on a roll. Maybe it doesn't even need to be a law but a tiny tax on nonstandard sizes (0.1%, enough to drive profit-seeking towards standards)

cadence- 7y ago
The irony is that one of the big reasons Brexit is even happening is because people in U.K. don’t like the fact that EU standardizes everything. They don’t seem to understand that this is being done to protect them from exactly this shrinkflation that is now going to be used by big companies to compensate for the negative results of Brexit.
- petre 7y ago
  They never signed up for being part of the EU. The UK joined the EC. Maybe they should stay in the EEA and everything would be fine, but even that has too many restrictive rules now that the English are unable to skirt. Like freedom of movement for goods and for people.
  - derriz 7y ago
    This is a Brexit lie based on a superficial change of name - the constitutional basis of the European Union is specified in the 1957 treaty of Rome and the later Maastricht treaty (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rome). The treaty of Rome explicitly states that the goal is the creation of a single market for goods, labour, services, and capital. This was the foundation of the union that the UK voted to join by plebiscite in the 1970s. The UK - a representative democracy - also ratified the subsequent Maastricht Treaty by democratically elected parliament. The idea that the British people were somehow subjected to a “bait and switch” con job is simply a fabrication and demonstrates historical ignorance.
    - dfawcus 7y ago

GuB-42 7y ago

So you mean listing the change on already mandatory information. Note that a lot can be told just looking at the label, but few people do it. For example quality meats tend to have more protein, quality diary products tend to to have more fat. High salt and sugar is usually a bad sign. The order of ingredients is important too: greatest amount first. It means that if the thing they advertise in front of the package is way down the list, that's not good.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> It means that if the thing they advertise in front of the package is way down the list, that's not good. Certain strong flavors, like mint, pepper, and lemon, usually appear pretty low in the ingredients list at the same time they're headlining the label.
- ethbro 7y ago
  If you have time, perusing ingredient lists for products at the grocery store is fascinating. I got in the habit trying to avoid palm oil, but there's all kinds of surprises in there. Not in the "I'm shocked there are chemicals in my food" way. But just in the transparent differences in formulation by weight. Check out marinades / BBQ sauces and baked beans.
  - thaumasiotes 7y ago
    In the case of the strong flavors I mentioned, I think it's appropriate. They headline the label because that's what the food tastes like. It just doesn't take much peppermint oil to create a really strong flavor.
tzs 7y ago
A friend of mine found a great example of this. She got a packaged snack item that consisted of some bread sticks and some yellow cheese or cheese-like dip. The front of the package prominently declared "Made With Real Cheese!". When she read the ingredients list, not only was cheese way down on the list--it was on the bread ingredients list, not the "cheese" dip ingredients list.

Bombthecat 7y ago

So much this! I could swear that cheese in germany adds more and more.. Water or so and taste less and less like cheese..

skrebbel 7y ago
To be fair, German cheese never tasted much like cheese.

pas 7y ago

There would be new products only, no "changed" ones to circumvent this.

kingludite 7y ago

I would like to see some qr code pointing at an ever expanding list of data. I imagine a game where every 3 months 1% tax is added that can be waved if some new data set is exposed to the customer. Its terrible how disconnected we are from the things that sustain us. There are so many companies involved in producing something simple. We can gradually expose the consumers to all these business processes we've accumulated over many thousands of years. I think it could be mind blowing in many ways. People aslo behave different if someone might be looking. Investors get a tour of the facility and everything seems designed for them rather than for the customer. I've seen places remove chairs and force everyone to stand all day simply because it looked good to investors. Open floor plans anyone? From an investor perspective the less room for livestock the better. Salaries cant possibly be low enough. etc Have them make [say] a nice video showing the production process. Have some fancy committee sign of on it. Or if the product is to embarrassed to show how it's made have it pay the 1% extra taxes.