Anyone who designs food packages knows that there are plenty of government compliance issues, in addition to a manufacturer’s imposed standards. This can wreak havoc on good box, bag, bottle and label design. “Up to the late 1960s, there was little information on food labels to identify the nutrient content of the food,” states the NIH/National Library of Medicine. “From 1941 to 1966, when information on the calorie or sodium content was included on some food labels, those foods were considered by the Food and Drug Administration to be for ‘special dietary uses,’ that is, intended to meet particular dietary needs caused by physical, pathological or other conditions.”
In 1969, a White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health led the FDA to consider adding a milestone, standardized system for identifying the nutritional qualities of food: “Every manufacturer should be encouraged to provide truthful nutritional information about his products.” In 1990 the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act was passed to mandate the design of labels “to help consumers select foods that may lead to more healthful diets.”
A format for the now-ubiquitous Nutrition Facts Panel was adopted in 1992 “that provided the proper context and emphasis. The FDA worked with graphic experts to design the label, taking into account research on comprehension, legibility and literacy.”
Burkey Belser (1947–2023) was the graphic designer of the Nutrition Facts Panel. It is arguably one of the most important graphic designs of the 20th century, but is only one of various design requisites for food packaging. “Nutrient Warnings” offer another significant level of consumer protection. All of these packaging assets are essential—and it is the buyer’s responsibility to use them. But it is also the designer’s job to make them usable.
This week I ran into a flaw in the system of consumer warnings. Look at the side panel of the gluten-free flatbreads shown here.
Do you see anything amiss?
I had never purchased this product before, but Whole Foods was out of my regular brand. Given the store’s reputation for “whole” healthy foods, it did not occur to me before eating a few to read the entire package, as the packaging was already loaded with nutritional attributes.
It is one thing to get allergen warnings … it’s another to be told you are being exposed to “chemicals including ACRYLAMIDE” that potentially cause CANCER.
Upon returning to Whole Foods, no one was aware of the warning, apologized and refunded what was paid. Later, I went to the website listed in the warning for more information.
I learned that California’s Proposition 65 requires businesses to warn people before exposing them to a significant amount of a chemical listed under Proposition 65 for cancer or reproductive toxicity.
The chemicals on the Prop 65 list include mercury, alcoholic beverages, lead, arsenic, cadmium, Bisphenol A and Acrylamide, a chemical formed in some plant-based foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures, such as frying (french fries and potato chips), roasting, grilling and baking. “In general, the browner the surface, the higher the level of acrylamide.”
Thus the producer of Absolutely! was complying with California law. Designing to avoid confusion is critical when it comes to so many products. But compliance is not always the answer, if it is designed in such a haphazard way as to increase fear and suspicion. Recently, “a court has decided that businesses do not have to warn about exposure to acrylamide in food.” However, I’ve decided that I can live without flatbread, and maybe if the odds are in my favor, I can live even longer.