Skip to main content

New and Improved? Really?

New and Improved, Scientifically Proven, 25% More, Compare at $100, All Natural...these are just some of the terms you see on product labels that can be quite misleading. 

How many of us look at product ingredient labels?  I know my family does because my two children and my wife all have to have Gluten Free foods, and my oldest also has Crones and is Lactose Free.  Labels are important to many people, and more important to many others.  Can companies lie on their ingredients list?  The answer is yes, but not in the way that you may be thinking.  So one of the product labeling requirements in the United States is for the ingredients to be listed in order from most to least by the quantity of each ingredient in the product.  By that I mean that if Rolled Oats is the ingredient that is most prevalent within your product, it must be first on the ingredient list, and the next most prevalent ingredient next, and so on. 

That, however, is where they get you.  If you have a very sugary cereal for instance, and you want to present the cereal as 'healthy' when it really isn't, you can put Rolled Oats as your first ingredient, and then instead of using one type of sugar to produce the product, use several different sugars, each in far lesser quantities than if only one was used.  That way the sugars you use will be listed farther down the ingredients list because you are using several different types.  The farther down the list, the less used, and the healthier it 'looks' to the consumer, even though it isn't any healthier than if one sugar was used that was at or near the top of the ingredients list. 

So it isn't lying necessarily, but it is definitely deception.  There is not reason to use so many different sugars when one or two could accomplish the same thing. 

The term 'All Natural' or '100% Natural' essentially means nothing when you see it on a product label.  Don't let it fool you.  the FDA does look closely at products labeled 'light', 'lite', and 'healthy', but there are still ways companies can deceive you with even those terms. 

Here is information from the FDA.GOV site concerning the use of the word 'healthy':

The FDA Requests Comments on Use of the Term “Natural” on Food Labeling

Because of the changing landscape of food ingredients and production, and in direct response to consumers who have requested that the FDA explore the use of the term “natural,” the agency asked the public to provide information and comments on the use of this term in the labeling of human food products.

The FDA is took this action in part because it received three Citizen Petitions asking that the agency define the term “natural” for use in food labeling and one Citizen Petition asking that the agency prohibit the term “natural” on food labels.  We also note that some Federal courts, as a result of litigation between private parties, have requested administrative determinations from the FDA regarding whether food products containing ingredients produced using genetic engineering or foods containing high fructose corn syrup may be labeled as “natural.”

Although the FDA has not engaged in rulemaking to establish a formal definition for the term “natural,” we do have a longstanding policy concerning the use of “natural” in human food labeling. The FDA has considered the term “natural” to mean that nothing artificial or synthetic  (including all color additives regardless of source) has been included in, or has been added to, a food that would not normally be expected to be in that food.  However, this policy was not intended to address food production methods, such as the use of pesticides, nor did it explicitly address food processing or manufacturing methods, such as thermal technologies, pasteurization, or irradiation. The FDA also did not consider whether the term “natural” should describe any nutritional or other health benefit. 

Specifically, the FDA asked for information and public comment on questions such as:

  • Whether it is appropriate to define the term “natural,”
  • If so, how the agency should define “natural,” and
  • How the agency should determine appropriate use of the term on food labels.

The fact that we are in 2018, and 'healthy' has been used on products for as long as it has with no determination from the FDA as to the requirements that need to be in place to use such a word, is concerning to me. 

Terms like 'Gluten Free', 'NON-GMO', etc. are also used on so many products now in prevalent ways in order to make things look healthier than they really are.  As stated in a comment I read while doing research, "A Candy Bar labeled Gluten Free and NON-GMO is still a Candy Bar."  Companies, however, use certain labeling popular at the time within society to get more customers and make products look better for you than they actually are. 

Another tactic that has been used over the course of time by many product manufacturers is the 'Slow Removal' tactic.  A Gallon is 128 Fluid Ounces, which makes a Half-Gallon 64 Fluid Ounces.  Many of the Juices and other drinks you can buy at the store in the 'Half-Gallon' paper cartons used to be 64 Fluid Ounces, but over the years, an ounce was removed here and an ounce was removed there, leaving many of the brands producing cartons of juice and other drinks that are 2-8 ounces shy of 64 Fluid Ounces.  That doesn't seem like a big deal, but when a company produces these products on a scale of 100,000 cartons or more per week, the savings passed on to the company is great, and the consumer doesn't normally notice the change; not unless they look at the label and confirm how many ounces are in the juice.  The cost of the juice didn't go down when the extra ounces were taken out, but the profits to the company went up.

Let's say a company produces 100,000 cartons of juice every week.  If they start filling their cartons with only 60 ounces instead of 64 ounces of juice, they will essentially be able to fill 6,666 additional cartons for free out of every 100,000 cartons filled.  If the juice costs the consumer 3 dollars a carton, that's almost an extra $20,000 in profit for the company per week, which translates into $1,040,000 per year in additional profit that wouldn't have existed otherwise.  Pretty big deal.

In the interests of full disclosure, there are some companies that have lessened the amount of product in their cartons because they wanted to avoid having to raise prices on consumers, but many companies have done it simply to become more profitable. 

In 2015, the attorney general of New York accused GNC, Target, Walgreens and Wal-Mart of selling herbal supplements that claimed to contain ingredients they didn't actually contain.  DNA tests of some of these stores' supplements found that just 21% contained DNA from the herbs and plans actually listed on the supplement labels. 

A large concern is the regulatory guidance followed by the FDA on supplements.  Supplements are far less regulated than regular food and drugs.  The FDA generally crack down on supplements after they have already hit the market by tracking stories of ill effects that are reported.  Many of your producers of the supplements order ingredients from other countries that end up in their products, but don't check those ingredients for purity prior to production. 

There have been many cases where supplements have been challenged and found to be misleading with their labeling or in their claims.  Additionally, with food, there have been cases that identified food to have more actual calories than claimed on the labeling.  In some cases, calorie counts can be off up to 20% and still be within the requirements of compliance with the FDA.  So that 500 calorie meal you ate from the freezer section could have been closer to 600 calories without you even knowing.  Generally, labeling for calories is close, but it is good to know that it is not always completely accurate. 

The lesson here is vigilance.  As a consumer you cannot just take a product label at face value.  Do your research and ensure you are getting all of the information, and look past the marketing tactics at the facts.  In the world of supplements, you really need to put your fingertips to the grindstone and use your Google Machine to research the companies, the products, and any claims that have been brought against them in the past.  Don't just trust a supplement because it is on the shelf at your local pharmacy.  Trust it because you have done the research on your end to ensure it is something beneficial to you. 

I don't want to make this story even longer, but these labeling and marketing issues aren't limited to food and drugs.  Have you ever listened to the radio and heard a commercial where they state, "Call within the next 10 minutes and get shipping free (or get a second product free)".  That is an outright lie.  It doesn't matter if you call in 8 minutes of 108 minutes, you are still going to get what they said they were offering.  It is a tactic marketers use to get you to run to your phone and call.  They are trying to appeal to your ID, the force within you that acts on instinct rather than rational thought.  Don't ever think it is really a deal, as it is just a marketing ploy.

There are even marketing ploys built into great programs.  Look at the Book It! program.  Kids read a certain amount of books and they are given a coupon for a free personal pan pizza from Pizza Hut.  That's great, most think.  What a great thing for Pizza Hut to do for the kids to get them to want to read more.  Really, when it comes down to it, it is a marketing tactic.  Most families who have a child who gets one of the free personal pan pizza coupons don't simply go to Pizza Hut and get a personal pan pizza.  They go as an entire family, get that personal pan pizza, but also order more pizza and drinks for the rest of the family.  So they gave a coupon out for a free pizza that may cost them under a dollar to produce, and in turn they get a family having dinner and spending closer to 30 or 40 dollars.  That's smart business more than it is caring about reading. 

So keep your eyes open, don't fall for false claims, and do your research instead of impulse buying.  Businesses exist to make money, and they will do all sorts of things to do so.  It is up to us, as the consumers, to ensure we are being diligent in our research to ensure we are getting what we want and not a hollow promise. 

This shampoo contains 30% More!  30% more than what?  This product is NEW AND IMPROVED!  Really, it really can only be one or the other.  If it is new, it's new.  If it's improved, what improvement was made over the previous version?  Marketing is everywhere...don't fall for it.

DUNK






Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trump and the DOJ Trying to Silence Mueller...

Mueller is set to sit in front of Congress on Wednesday this week and answer questions regarding the Mueller Investigation.  The DOJ, and organization that is supposed to look out for the best interests of America but has recently decided to become Trump's personal Law Firm, has sent correspondence to Mueller about what he can and cannot answer. For instance, you have the question of the 10 documented cases of obstruction in volume 2 of the report.  Mueller made it clear that he was bound by DOJ policy and could not indict a sitting president.  One very important question the Congressional Leadership will likely ask is, "If Donald Trump wasn't the sitting President, would you have indicted him based on the amount of evidence in the report?"  That question in every respect is fair.  You are asking the head of an investigation if they would have indicted someone had an arbitrary roadblock not been in place.  I say arbitrary roadblock because the policy is...

Let's talk about kids

So here we are, waiting patiently and watching what the government is doing to reunite children with their parents who have been separated at the border.  The government said all it would take was a few key strokes and they could immediately identify which children were where and get them reunited.  Interesting comment considering that we are now past the court mandated timeframe within which the government was mandated by the court to reunite the 102 children under the age of 5 with their parents.  They had a month to do it, and only managed to reunite around 54 children by the deadline.  They have resorted to taking DNA samples from children and parents to try to match them up in a database because the process they used to separate these children from their parents didn't take into consideration the reunification process, so in most cases they have no idea which children match up to which parents. Instead of the President taking a more compassionate approach to...

Technology, the Double Edged Sword

Technology is an amazing thing isn't it?  Look at the evolution of the computer.  Below I am providing a history of the evolution of the computer.  It is not all-inclusive, but does document some very important moments in history starting in 1801 and ending in 2017.  If you aren't a huge reader, you can jump past the history lesson to the remainder of my blog below, but it is very interesting and I recommend you read through it.  In France in 1801, Joseph Marie Jacquard invented a loom that used punched wooden cards to automatically weave fabric designs.  Early computers would use similar punch cards. In 1822, an English Mathematician named Charles Babbage conceived of a steam-driven calculating machine that would be able to compute tables of numbers.  The project was funded by the English government and was a failure.  More than a century later, however, the first computer was actually built in the world. In 1890, Herman Hollerith designed ...