I work in regulatory and the reason they include that is to avoid litigation. You don't want to give anyone even the slightest reason to sue you. It is similar to the Prop 65 warning you see everywhere in California.
A newspapers.com search shows "Enlarged to Show Detail" was common in advertisements for jewelry and silver servings back in the 1910-1929 timeframe. "Enlarged to Show Texture" first appears in 1960s ads for clothing and bedding fabrics.
I LOVE sleuthing at the grocery store for weird packaging claims (see two recent posts on writing prompts discovered at grocery store [lizabluehumorist.substack.com])
I believe the FDA regulates food packaging and they have developed standards for a limited number of foods, including the noun chocolate. If a food is labeled "chocolate" it has to meet standards from the amount of cocoa butter, etc. etc. However the FDA does not regulate the related words of "chocolately," "fudge," or "chocolate flavor" (here chocolate is used as an adjective and not the noun). So if you see any of these words, you can be sure that they are not in fact chocolate. The FDA does not regulate other descriptive marketing terms referring to chocolate including "gourmet" "decadent" or "artisan." Don't get me started on work arounds to labeling faux "chicken" including chick'n and chiqin.
I suspect that "enlarged" is a CYA so they can treat is as a euphemism for manipulated; retouched and/or photoshopped to improve the product's appearance. We've all seen the stock vs. actual photos of Big Macs and other fast food items and read articles about food companies using mashed potatoes in place of ice cream in advertisements.
My thought about those "enlarged" images is that what they should really say is "enhanced". I notice that the salt or sugar or whatever is on top of many of the items stands out more in the image, or that the holes are more defined, or whatever.
A lot of these pictures are on pretty small packages. Some of them are clearly packs that would not be individually for sale, and would therefore need a larger package to contain them. Is it possible that the disclaimer text is just boilerplate so as the size of the package/graphics gets scaled, it's there when it's needed?
And of course there's the well-known "Serving Suggestion". I can't post a pic here, but we bought a small jar of capers in brine (not for hot dogs, alas), and it depicted a caper that was like a botanical sketch in color of the entire caper plant including leaves and the stem. Of course, it had a "Serving Suggestion" disclaimer on it. Really?
My favorite "serving suggestion" came from a box of Hot Pockets, where they encourage you to eat it with a side of vegetables. As if cooking up a Hot Pocket in the first place isn't concrete proof that you have ZERO interest in eating a balanced meal.
I work in regulatory and the reason they include that is to avoid litigation. You don't want to give anyone even the slightest reason to sue you. It is similar to the Prop 65 warning you see everywhere in California.
I just saw that Smartfood popcorn says “Clearly this popcorn has been enlarged to show texture” which is a really sassy way to word this. https://www.target.com/p/smartfood-white-cheddar-popcorn-6-75oz/-/A-14930857
Art of noticing! This was fun post. I am sure I'm going to look at the fine print with more efforts now.
Dude, if you don’t email every company implicated in this nonsense I will!!!
Has anyone not bought a product because they didn't like the texture the enlargement was showing?
"I will continue to monitor this compelling saga as new developments warrant."
who here would expect anything less?
Has anyone really made a purchase decision based on the “representative slice” window on the back of a bacon package?
Actually, I'm picky enough about bacon to choose a more meaty slab from what's on the shelf, so yes, I use the representative slice.
I've written about that! https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-bacon-package-product-design/
I really, REALLY hope the BOMP thing becomes a never-ending adventure!
You and me both, Mike!
A newspapers.com search shows "Enlarged to Show Detail" was common in advertisements for jewelry and silver servings back in the 1910-1929 timeframe. "Enlarged to Show Texture" first appears in 1960s ads for clothing and bedding fabrics.
Next, let's get to the bottom of what "Fresh Pack" means on jarred vegetables. :)
Or 'Serving Suggestion" when it's just the product on a plate instead of eaten directly from the bag while sitting on the couch!
I LOVE sleuthing at the grocery store for weird packaging claims (see two recent posts on writing prompts discovered at grocery store [lizabluehumorist.substack.com])
I believe the FDA regulates food packaging and they have developed standards for a limited number of foods, including the noun chocolate. If a food is labeled "chocolate" it has to meet standards from the amount of cocoa butter, etc. etc. However the FDA does not regulate the related words of "chocolately," "fudge," or "chocolate flavor" (here chocolate is used as an adjective and not the noun). So if you see any of these words, you can be sure that they are not in fact chocolate. The FDA does not regulate other descriptive marketing terms referring to chocolate including "gourmet" "decadent" or "artisan." Don't get me started on work arounds to labeling faux "chicken" including chick'n and chiqin.
I suspect that "enlarged" is a CYA so they can treat is as a euphemism for manipulated; retouched and/or photoshopped to improve the product's appearance. We've all seen the stock vs. actual photos of Big Macs and other fast food items and read articles about food companies using mashed potatoes in place of ice cream in advertisements.
I have to admit I wasn’t sure of your rebrand, because I really like uniforms, but I am really really enjoying these posts
haha felt the exact same.
I was in nonetheless but this is the one that I'm like "yeah, Paul's still got the fastball"
My thought about those "enlarged" images is that what they should really say is "enhanced". I notice that the salt or sugar or whatever is on top of many of the items stands out more in the image, or that the holes are more defined, or whatever.
A lot of these pictures are on pretty small packages. Some of them are clearly packs that would not be individually for sale, and would therefore need a larger package to contain them. Is it possible that the disclaimer text is just boilerplate so as the size of the package/graphics gets scaled, it's there when it's needed?
Also- the pecan shortbread cookies are Publix branded: https://delivery.publix.com/landing?product_id=315799
Thank you! I'll adjust the caption accordingly.
And of course there's the well-known "Serving Suggestion". I can't post a pic here, but we bought a small jar of capers in brine (not for hot dogs, alas), and it depicted a caper that was like a botanical sketch in color of the entire caper plant including leaves and the stem. Of course, it had a "Serving Suggestion" disclaimer on it. Really?
My favorite "serving suggestion" came from a box of Hot Pockets, where they encourage you to eat it with a side of vegetables. As if cooking up a Hot Pocket in the first place isn't concrete proof that you have ZERO interest in eating a balanced meal.