In a truly unprecedented move and despite the fact that 95 percent of what’s in a supermarket is already labeled, grocery stores may become subject to the regulation as well because of the language FDA uses in its proposed rule: “restaurants and similar retail food establishments.” Again, if the provision is implemented as written, “It’s gonna have a huge impact on whether they have to scale back a store. In this economic environment, they’re having trouble keeping stores open period…or scale back fresh offerings,” FMI’s director of government relations Robert Rosado explains. “It’s silly when literally you take produce and just because you cut it then that triggers you being in this thing. It’s very counter-intuitive.” With already high commodity and energy costs, the internalization of expenses has gone as far as it can, he adds.
And what about the research showing menu labeling helps reduce obesity rates and increase overall health? FMI’s Erik Lieberman writes:
“It has been estimated by industry that the costs of extending menu labeling to supermarkets will exceed $1 billion in the first year of compliance alone, and hundreds of million of dollars annually thereafter. Meanwhile, the evidence that menu labeling has any significant impact on public health is scant. Indeed, of the studies FDA cites in the rule, most demonstrate that menu labeling has little to no effect on purchasing habits. Furthermore, no study shows any link to reduction of obesity rates, the purported benefit which FDA used to justify the menu labeling regulation.”
Monday, November 26, 2012
Menu Labeling: Another Job-Killing Regulation in ObamaCare
It's getting harder and harder not to become jaded at what I see. The more about O'Bamacare I read, the more I am utterly disgusted.