Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in or
create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision |
Your text |
Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| *etc. | | *etc. |
|
| |
|
| Each such label is [[factionally defined]] since only a subset of the population cares about each one. Some are subject to [[trademark]] or special trademark-like laws that make [[passing off]] difficult or at least more risky. | | Each such label is [[factionally defined]] since only a subset of the population cares about each one. |
| | |
| A '''mandatory label''' requires disclosing some possibly undesirable data, like, the presence of GMOs, or [[nutritional content]] or [[preservatives]].
| |
| | |
| The [[Consumerium buying signal]], among other things, must be able to state with some [[integrity]] whether any standard label applies to a product or not on the [[retail shelf]]. Usually this is marked on the product itself, but, very often, there are questions about whether the product has been properly audited, and also questions about the standards the label itself applies - so [[individual buying criteria]] should accomodate factional interpretations of a label, e.g. a particularly strict type of kosher or halal, or no dealing with ANY company that cuts ANY old growth ANYWHERE in the world, etc. These may be [[yellow light]] criteria that require some more specific data to be conveyed to the [[Consumerium end user]].
| |