Could be two reasons:

1. For me after reading them for over a year I don't have to because I rarely buy something that is new. So I know what it contains. Plus most of what I eat is fruits, vegtables, etc.

2. People may have become numb to contents of food. Because they feel everything is bad for you or because they don't trust the labels. For instance, the Trans Fat issue where if they contain less than 1mg or percent they can list it as zero. Or the issue with "serving size" where the numbers look small but a "serving" is abnormally small and not representative of what one eats.

I have to agree with miket.....the serving size is sometimes so skewed. If it could be fixed to represent a normal serving amount maybe more people would read the lables and care more because they wouldnt have to do as much work to figure out what they are comsuming as opposed to what the label says is a serving size.

I, too, must agree with MikeT -- especially about the numbness issue.  I think a lot of people feel so intimidated by the choices out there that they just give up.  I would think this must be particularly true in the case of things like eggs -- first they're 'nature's perfect food,' then they're death on a plate, then they're really not so bad if you eat no more than three per week, then they're 'natures perfect food' again -- or bran muffins -- first they're great for you (even though everyone hates them :D), then they're (ZOMG!) laden with tons of hidden fat and sugar.

Moreover, I think people are probably aware that, for all our obsession over 'nutrition' in the past few decades, we're fatter and less healthy than we were a generation or two ago, before we decided to try this 'scientific' approach to eating.  Perhaps just as significantly, a generation or two ago, people felt like they knew which choices to make -- and now shoppers find themselves awash in a sea of choices without any real way to discern which ones are best.

More or less, I think we're suffering from a national epidemic of label fatigue.  People have given up trying to make sense of the data, since the analysis of that data seems to change every week -- and when you can't make sense of the data, why bother looking at it?

In short, I would guess that most Americans feel about their groceries the way I do about my 401k.  Every time I look at my portfolio, risk profiles, etc., my head tries to explode -- so I just let someone else handle it (so far it's doing pretty well, all things considered).  The difference is that most of us don't have 'someone else' to help sort out which food choices are best for us, so a lot of folks just pack up and quit.

I agree with a lot that has already been said.  I do read labels on prepared foods, but I don't buy many prepared foods.  When I throw a carton of plain yogurt or a banana in my cart-- I know what I am buying and don't need to read the label.

My biggest pet peeve is skewed serving sizes.  Many years ago I had a coupon for Kraft Singles (cream cheese).  I was on a bagel kick, so I picked up a package.  In order to make the calories less scary (I presume) they listed 2 1/2 servings per unit.  I mean, the name was Singles, yet it was 2.5 servings.  Needless to say, I put it back on the shelf and bought a brick of Philadelphia.  Besides, even with the coupon, it was more expensive, and had way too much packaging to be good for the environment.

I do read food labels carefully, but since I cook with mostly whole foods there aren't that many.  I don't fully trust the information however.  I feel that the FDA is in the pockets of large food processors so the labels are in the interest of their profits rather than the health of the consumer.

The transfat issue really made me angry, knowing that I have to read all the fine print ingredients to detect the word hydrogenated.  Also, the sneaky wording like "cane juice" for sugar is annoying and deceptive. 

I can't tell you why people don't read labels at all.  It's an interesting question.

I now look at the serving size on the labels more than I use to. 

I usually read the labels while eating the food or while making it to make sure I'm using the serving size correctly.  However I almost never look at it when purchasing ... the only time I do is when I try new things.

I've read labels, gasped and put the product back on the shelf, thinking this is why Americans are fat!  There are way too many products out there that are way too unhealthy for anyone.  We need some way to make the food producers want to make their products more healthful for everyone.  Maybe a "healthy food seal of approval" if it meets certain gudelines for a decent portion size.  It's so frustrating when you have a fraction of a portion in what should be a single serving or you can't figure out what the serving should be!

My suggestion would be to incorporate food labels in public education.  I personally use labels to gauge my decisions while in the grocery store.  With my kids we have a 'under 14g of sugar' rule before it can be put in the shopping cart.  Kids and adults alike don't even understand what they are reading let alone how it can benefit them.  I am glad this question was posted, because I am definately going to talk to my kids about how by learning how to read nutrional information they can make better choices.

I remember an article on here a few weeks ago about how some grocery stores are grading foods (A, B, C, etc.).  I have not seen this at the grocery stores I go to, but I think this is an excellent idea.  Many people don't know how much fiber is a good amount, or how much fat is too much.  They don't want to think too hard about nutrition when they are trying to just find a good value while getting their groceries for the week.  If a "B" was right in front of their face, they wouldn't have to do any work at all to know if something is healthy or not.

I pretty much agree with everything that's been said already.

I've always read every food label.  My first job was as a cashier, and I'd read product labels often, sometimes to pass time, sometimes out of curiosity and sometimes because I wanted to get the most calories and least amount of filler for my buck on a really tight budget.

Now I always read labels because my husband get migraines from MSG, caffeine, chocolate and some toher things, AND to top it off, he has wheat intolerance as well.  I won't eat anything made with bug dye, and some other questionable ingredients that I feel shouldn't even qualify as 'food'.  MSG can hide under a very wide variety of names, as can forms of wheat.

I think there's a lot of room for improvement with labeling, and I like the idea of implementing a chart like CC has - the % of fat/carbs/protein each food has, for exampe, alone would be great.  People love visual aids and charts.  A food grade isn't necessarily the best thing though, as it varies quite a bit on CC alone, and would probably be heavily lobbyied and influenced by the makers of the product.  The other problem with grading is who decides the difference between an A, B, C and so on? How much room for error is there? Does a lower fat meat product rate an A even if it has fillers and other added solution to it?  Wouldn't every fried potato chip and oreo cookie rate a "D" or "F"? I can imagine food companies being STRONGLY against this, to the point of no change being made at all.

the above mentioned %'s are solid though - there's no influencing that.  I'd like a label that mentions how many typs of sugars are in something - corn syrup gets listsed as a 'sugar' for example. 

Not only that, but the labels are inaccurate.  For example...my bag of Hershey's dark blliss chocolates say that in 6 pieces of chocolate you are only eating 200 calories.  But if there are 4 calories in every gram of carbohydrates (25), and protein (3), and 9 calories for every gram of fat (13) then you're actually consuming 236 calories.  I get so frustrated by this because I understand rounding to the nearest 5 calories...in this case 235, but when they round to the neares HUNDRED calories???  That's just lying!!!

I mainly search for four items on a food level: Number of servings per package; total calories per serving,  total grams of fat per serving, and total grams of Fiber per serving.  (These are also the items used in Weight Watcher's Points system.)

I would like to see this information highlighted  - larger print, bold, and grouped together.  That would make getting the critical information easier. 

It's much easier in Denmark, here things have numbers for 100g of the product and maybe percent of recommended daily diet as well. Very few things have serving size numbers but if they do it's in addition to the per 100g numbers.

I agree with a lot of the comments already posted here. I also feel that some foods that are totally unhealthy promote the one "good" thing it has in it and attempts to pass itself off as healthy. I believe it is giving the consumers a false sense of sureity as to the nutritional value of the item.

I think anyone who reads food labels has an issue with the serving size. Why should a "single" contain 2.5 servings. Why is it when you go to a restaurant and buy a salad, it's 3 servings? Again- I think it's all in a vain attempt to make things that are highly caloric look healthier.

I think some people just don't know what to look for in a label. I am blown away by the amount of sodium in most foods, and most people don't understand or know how much sodium, or fiber, or protein, or calories are appropriate for one meal. Some people who DO read labels find themselves buying what they maybe THINK looks healthy. Low calorie isn't everything people!

I think maybe a pros and cons list, as featured on this site, would be an awesome idea- Instead of just ranting on the label about having 0 trans fat, how about fessing up to the fact that it also has enough sodium to take down an elephant. I know this is unrealistic due to the nature of advertizing, but I feel that would be a reasonable way to let people know what they are getting that is bad and good in their food. It would also help people decifer the labels.

A large part of this issue is the fact that people don't read the "hard to read" food label, and instead look at what the packaging says.  In all reality the packaging displays skewed data to promote the "healthy" lifestyle, even when it isn't that great for you.  Take this crap about cereal being a part of a "balanced breakfast".  What is a balanced breakfast anyway?  Loaded with empty carbohydrates and sugar? 

Fueling that problem is the fact that most people don't even know *what* they should be eating.  They guess-timate on this imaginary scale of how "healthy" something is, even though that idea doesn't really work.  Public education of self nutrition should be a major part of Physical Education courses in schools, but sadly that gets pushed aside with the "Health" portion of the course in favor of various sports activities.

Another hidden problem is when smaller items such as spices will have a "mail this address to get the nutritional information" when in all reality you have zero information on what is in the item. 

There are several other issues that lead to normal people not reading what is in the food that they are eating, but I think I hit on enough of them here. 

I read them even though it's depressing - serving sizes are often laughably small.  I appreciate the information because sometimes I will put something back on the shelf.  I really only look at a few things on the label: serving size, calories, calories from fat and sodium.  Maybe the labels are too complicated.

1. I do look at food labels, but for the most part I have a general stored memory of what's in what I eat. So its not always necessary.

2. I think that our food labels here in the US are not very accurate. For instance - some foods here are written up to contain 140 calories, but overseas, that same food item with the same serving size will be written up at 160-170 calories. Why? Because in the US, companies deduct calories per gram of fiber. Which I personally thing is ridiculous. Calories in are calories in  no matter the form. I think that this practice leads people to not trust manufacture's labels as much.

3. We're lazy. People are constantly told a hundred different messages, and maybe hold onto one or two of them - instead of hearing all sides and making a cumulative choice about what foods to eat. A more well rounded and natural approach to teaching people how to eat properly would be far more helpful than overwhelming the masses with a dozen different statistics and facts and studies. What we need is simple knowledge and basic instruction on how to understand what is the best way to have a healthy diet with room for "treats" every now and again.

I'm part of the 60%--I read the labels. Many times the label helps me to determine if I really want the product. I walked around Tops the other day looking for something for supper--I was on the road and would not be home for a few hours. Everything I picked up, I placed back on the shelf. I finally ended up with three chicken wings from the deli. I'm sure that was very unhealthy, but since there was no label staring me in the face, I bought them.

I would like stores to be required to clearly label their take-out food. (AND APPLEBEES TOO!)

Other than that, I've found  that some labels are unreadable. Extremely small print and labels on  plastic are difficult to read.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to read a nutrition label, if someone doesn't care, they aren't going to read it.   The real issue should be trying to get more people to care about their health.  Then they may start reading more labels.

Ah, the fine print issue. But also, knowing what E-NUMBERS refer to. Here in Europe we are veryhow to communicate  particular about labelling ingredients, but then we have these references to E-this or that. And where do you find out what E-numbers refer to? So we need help, too. The FDA should employ some experts in how to communicate.

I know this is off topic, but the most helpful thing I seen lately was calorie counts at restaurants in New York City.  My biggest problem is eating right when I'm away from home.  I read food labels and other then the often deceptive serving size, think they are important and useful.

The frustration I have with the food labels now is that they only give you the facts per serving.  In the supermarket it is not always convenient to bring a calculator with you and spend the entire day at the market trying to figure out how many calories in the entire package.  I think they should have one column for the "per serving" nutrition values and one column for the "whole package" nutrition values.  In this day in age, there are so many people with lives so busy that they turn to fast food and quick cooking that they dont have time to sit there with a calculator to figure out the nutrition values of the whole package by adding up the servings.  A lot of people, myself included want to know both, that way when cooking a meal for an entire family, you know how many calories will be in the entire meal, but you can also figure how many are in each serving.  This is all just my opinion of course. 

The food industry has lobbied the rule makers so they can manipulate what we see on the label, whether in terms of tinkering with the definitions of things (like what it takes to be organic) or hiding calories behind serving sizes (my cooking spray has 0 calories per 1/5 second serving size, which probably means 2.4 calories per squirt, which probably means 25 calories to coat a pan). Food companies manipulate serving sizes to force people to do math to figure out how many calories a real serving has. 

The reason people don't read labels, is that food companies have made labels untrustworthy and hard to understand. If you want people to read labels, they need to be simplified and standardized. A good start would be for serving sizes to accurately reflect would a real serving size is, and for companies to have to list the total calories in the entire package, regardless of serving size. 

I believe that one of the reasons is that the calorie levels (e.g., 2000 and 2500) for nutrients are too high for the majority of the population who would be using the lable to help with weight loss.  I believe they should do a 1700 and a 2000 lable instead.

What is it that many have been noticing about the attention span of those under 30? If you said, "there is none" you'd be correct. Whatever the cause, be it video games or TV programming, kids seem to devote about 10 seconds to a task before their minds move on. Reading food labels has also become tedious as food manufacturers have tweaked the labeling to reflect a good image when in reality the nutrition is horrendous. You look at a jar and says servong size 100 calories. Terrific! If you read further you soon realize that there are 25 servings in the jar. There is too much chickanery as my dad used to say. How about going to color coded labels. Anything 40% or more fat gets a red colored label. Anything over a certain % of sugar gets a red label. A gree, yellow, red would encourage more people to look to see why hot dogs have a BRIGHT red label.

Gotta go with serving size and also the whole less than one= zero. I want to know how many calories are in the whole container. Don't want to stand in the isle trying to do math. Also, if there are 0.6 gms of whatever dont tell me 0

I'll tell you what I would like to see: food labels that could be automatically imported to the computer/iphone... like a barcode type thing or a chip...

It'd be neat to see the ingredients represented with a picture or maybe a pie chart. For example: In this product we have X amount of this, X amount of this, and X amount of this; all represented on a pie chart.

Also...I'm not an avid label reader either. Over the last year or so, I have had "bigger fish to fry" and good nutrition wasn't always my priority. Sad to say. Now I am moving toward better nutrition and whole foods, thereby avoiding many canned foods which I hear are high in Na.

Lastly, it may also be that we, as a country, are trusting and relying heavily on the FDA to look after us; they monitor everything supposedly. This might be a naive notion on my behalf, but it's just a bit of insight.

tirma: Awesome idea!!

Original Post by: atech

It doesn't matter how easy it is to read a nutrition label, if someone doesn't care, they aren't going to read it.   The real issue should be trying to get more people to care about their health.  Then they may start reading more labels.

Exactly.

Me, I read labels and have done for the last 18 years--mainly the ingredients section. Although I buy the same items (e.g., nonfat yogurt), I don't always shop at the same stores so I sometimes have to buy different brands. And some brands, even the allegedly organic ones, contain additives that I won't consume.

But, most people I know don't read labels because they don't care. That includes my two adult sons who grew up reading labels and know better.

I agree that we all have a tendencey to buy the same things over and over.

That being said and as a conscientious label reader, I feel overwhelmed by too much information!  One day we are reading fat and fiber, cholesterol and saturated fats, the next day we need to read for protein/added sugars,  And then there is/was the corn syrup debate which is still going on!  There is always the concern over the number of calories with all of this.

So - are we better for all the information or do we no longer know what to value?  The outside perimeter of the market is where I try to stay and watch everything else...just not certain what is vital to watch anymore!?!?

Oh - and now let me mention the WHOLE GRAINS issue and how to read those labels....it's an educaiton into and of itself! 

I like the way CC gives food a letter grade when you log items; maybe the FDA could come up with a grade system instead of percents-not everyone knows how many grams of fat should equal 35% of their daily intake, but if _ grams of fat were graded B+ or D- they could tell if it were good, bad or better. 

I too agree that the ABC rating method has some merit.  I also wonder if the trend to eat out more has an impact why people aren't reading labels.  Not all restaurants have a nutritional label for all that is served.  If I was eating out most of the time and only shopping for mimimal items in a store, I don't know if I would be reading labels.

Ack. I just want to buy the food. I have a hard time seeing the little label, then deciphering what all the things are. I read the first three things. If the first thing is Sugar, it doesn't make it in the cart (except jam of course). The first ingredient should be  food. If it isn't, don't buy it.

I'm curious about what people mean when they say they want to see the number of calories 'in the whole package'. I don't buy any single-serving sized packages so I don't know if that's what everyone means, but for a large bag of crackers, a jug of milk or a jar of peanut butter, the serving size given usually seems pretty reasonable. It's usually an ounce, 100 g, a cup or a tablespoon, depending on the food. My only specific problem with food labels is when there are multiple sugars listed, it lists them separately and after the first ingredient. I won't buy anything (besides sugar!) that has sugar listed first, so this bugs me. If the three types of sugar were comglomerated it might come first, but there's no way to tell.

I agree that food labels are complicated in the USA, I didn't understand how much I should be eating from a package, a lot  of the time.  I'm from Ireland and most of the food shops here, list the nutrition information per 100g of the product, and also for the total weight of the product. 

Recently a lot of the large UK supermarket chains, like Tesco, have brought in a 'traffic light' type coding system and they print it on the front of the pack.  It takes an RDA of 2000 cals per day for an average adult, and tells you what percentage of carbs, fat, saturated fat, sugar and sodium of this RDA  the pack contains.  So you can see immediately, for example, that a frozen pizza will give you 80% of your recommended daily fat recommended amount.   It's a quick way to analyse a product if you're in a hurry and I find it useful!

I read labels and find them useful, sometimes hard to read, but always useful. I compare labels of food I always buy to food I'm considering buying. I read labels when I get products home, because I don't have them memorized.

There are issues with labels, like the serving sizes and the "calculated" calorie counts (reduced by fiber content), however people don't read labels because they don't want to know. They want to buy food that their kids beg them to buy, they want to buy food that they really like the taste of, and they don't want to be reminded of the risks some desirable foods pose.

Educating people to be healthy is a constant job that must go on and on and on. Our environment no longer demands exercise and limits food available. The only answer is eduction.

Labels are a tool. Labels cannot educate. They are simply a tool to help an educated user make a wise choice. An undeducated user doesn't have the knowledge to use the tool. If we teach health, in addition to reading and 'rithmatic, we will see a change in label reading. 

The only thing I can think of from the top of my head is serving sizes. For example, my roommate eats pre-packaged foods like Pop Tarts and microwaveable food, etc. I was stunned that one serving of Pop Tart is one pastry when the non-seal-able package had two. And one serving had 200 calories. It might not benefit companies to be more realistic about what people are going to eat, but I know consumers (who actually read labels) will appreciate the heads up. 

I read labels and weigh food because sometimes it is just hard to pin point a serving and they seem to vary a lot and i notice some just don't seem to correspond like 1/2cup = this many grams...but when you weigh a half a cup of the item, it is more grams...I find this with cereal and ice cream. So using labels alone is only as helpful as your ability to gauge an amount by eyeballing it unless your weighing food.

Also, the hydrogenated issue bugs me too. seemingly healthy items i am finding actually do contain trans fat that is hidden in small print. even peanut butter! can't the FDA do something to push out Hydrogenated oils....are they really necessary? instead of trying to impose taxes on soda and such...can't they just do something more useful like setting limits on additives.

More realistic serving sizes! That is the NUMBER ONE thing that I want to see on labels. And some sort of grading system that would not scare off/piss off companies but would maybe make them work harder to make their foods as healthy as possible to get that better label. Not grades or colors - because what about the gray areas but I like the pie chart idea, and grouping the most important information in bold at the top of the label.

I think most people don't know what to believe when they read a food label. The ingredients listed on the label may include high fructose corn syrup and fully hydrogenated soybean oil, but some people might think that these things are okay to eat because soybeans are good for you, right? And wasn't there just a commercial on TV showing two people chowing down on some high fructose corn syrup and talking about how it was good for you because it's made out of corn (seriously, what was up with that?)?

I don't think people are informed well enough about what exactly it is that they're eating to make a decision on whether a food is good or bad for them, even if they read the label. (Carmine coloring, present in some pink grapefruit juices, comes from the squeezed shells of beetles. Pineapple flavoring is made from the same ingredient used to make shoe polish. Gelatin comes from animal bones. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.)

I think a campaign to make people more aware of where their food actually comes from would make people read labels more often. Who wants to eat bone-runoff?! I think that a campaign such as this would also change the way people buy, manufacture, and think about food, which may help people overall to become healthier without even trying. I understand that telling people exactly what they're eating may not immediately be beneficial for some of the companies that produce unhealthy foods, but are we really more concerned about lining the pockets of snacky-cake producers than about protecting our own health? Come on. Maybe it would force those companies to find healthier ways to make their food.

Like most people here, I'm aware of the importance of food labels and don't buy most of the processed items on sale in supermarkets. When I shop, I'm quite vigilant, though, and it all works out in the end. My pet peeve with food labels is the different ways it's translated in different counties.

Despite being part of the 60%, it's a struggle to accurately report my food intake when I'm logging my calories for several reasons. Mainly, I eat a lot of homemade meals which are Middle Eastern fare - wholesome, delicious, and filling, but it's so difficult to break that down. These days, however, manufacturers are making a concerted effort thanks to the popularity of some of that fare in North America - Hummus, Falafel, etc.

Also, it's often difficult to find the proper nutritional values on CC because I'm Canadian and as such, there are discrepancies in the food labels of identical products sold in both countries. I realize that CC moderators and folk do their best to incorporate readily available food and I applaud their efforts, but I don't like to use almost right, but not quite right calculations.

We're coming up with an application whose goal is to facilitate reading and understanding the label especially for one's needs.

Check out CarrotLines.com and send me an e-mail if you have any feedback!

Thanks,

Wahiba (wchair@gmail.com)

One of the challenges with food labels is the confusion between weight measures and volume measures. I was trying to figure out the calorie count for a recipe that used a small amount of chocolate chips. The label indicated a calorie count per tablespoon (there are 16 tablespoons in a cup) and by grams. However, the tablespoon measurement was inaccurate because it is a volume measure and grams is a weight measure - so according to the package there would less than 16 tablespoons in a cup, based on the fact that the entire package held 2 cups of chips and there were (based on weight) 23 servings in the entire package.

I also agree with the serving size information issues others have raised. A can of lemonade that appears to be a single serving lists the nutrient information as 1.5 or 2.0 servings per can -- extremely misleading and irritating. The only way to know for sure what you are eating is to read EVERY single word on the label.

Yes, the whole serving size issue is a big pb b/c often you eat WAY MORE than that and you'd need a calculator to do the math...

I visited countries in the middle east such as Qatar which is even worse and even the Category of products doesn't have a "uniform" measure.

What are the big things you try to stay away from in the ingredients?

eg. msg (which has MANY names), high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated fat, colour, additives?

I DO read labels and would like to see Glycemic information on food labels.  Preferably Glycemic Load, but I know that's asking too much.

No that's a good one especially for Diabetic individuals. Would be very useful.

I think that when it's up to the company to place & size the FDA label, it really gets hidden sometimes.  It seems as though products that have nothing to hide, proudly establish a large, easy to read label.  Others that are not so good, extremely small print and hard to read.

I believe that these labels should be like the UK cigarette warnings and be most (more than 50%) of the labelling for one of the largest sides of the package, not the thinnest most unreadable, and usually overlooked side.  I also believe in the "contains: milk, nuts, soy, etc"  labelling for allergens.

In Germany, the labels are by 100g amounts, and total package or serving size amount.  This makes it much easier to calculate the number of calories and fat, etc that you are eating.

In America, the serving sizes are bizarre.  You have to figure out if you have had fourteen cheetos, which is one portion, which is so many calories, etc.  Who eats fourteen cheetos?

Because i am trying to lose weight, I always read the nutrition labels, but sometimes it's so frustrating when a container that is obviously meant to be a single serving will sometimes be listed as two or even more servings. you have to look hard to make sure you're keeping track of calories accurately. i think this is the main reason people don't even bother looking at the labels.