I hate to admit it, but I fell for it. I could blame a crowded, noisy grocery store, or shopping with hungry kids, but ultimately the fault is mine. 

When my daughter asked me if we could get Skinny Pop microwaveable popcorn, I said yes without a second thought. Skinny and popcorn are two of my favorite things. And there were those words in bold on the same box! Of course, let’s take that home and try it. No need to consult the nutrition label. 

Skinny Pop popcorn is incredibly good. Too good. It was only after tasting it that the critical side of my brain kicked into gear, and I looked at the nutrition facts. Skinny Pop popcorn has the exact same nutritional content as any other microwaveable popcorn. The same calories, same fat. Slightly less sodium, but everything else was exactly the same. The only difference I could see is the other popcorn brands are not tricking you into believing you’re eating diet food. (And, also, taste. This is really good popcorn.) 

A quick internet search reveals that the skinny in Skinny Pop is has nothing to do with nutritional content, but instead the products’ “skinny” list of ingredients. I’m sure their market research team would be shocked at consumers’ confusion. 

Using that logic, I don’t know what’s stopping the company from marketing other food goods. Skinny Cheese and Skinny Bacon would fly off the shelves. All the taste with none of the guilt. (Just avoid stepping on scales after consumption.) 

Grocery shopping is a landmine for marketing gimmicks. Non-GMO oranges. Gluten-free chicken. Dairy-free popcorn. I haven’t seen cholesterol-free bananas, but they are probably coming.  

One thing that is coming is USDA’s bioengineered food label. As of Jan. 1, 2022, foods that are genetically modified or contain certain quantities of genetically modified ingredients must carry this label.  

The labeling caps off a nearly 10-year debate between “right-to-know” activists and “there’s no scientific justification” food manufacturers. It seems neither party is happy with the outcome. Food manufacturers say the labels mislead consumers into thinking GMO foods are unsafe when countless studies have proved otherwise. Consumer activists say the new federal disclosure standard contains too many loopholes.  

 Both sides seem to agree that the labels themselves are ultimately useless — providing consumers with no helpful information about the nutritional content or safety of their food. 

Implementing the label standards will be costly. The Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service estimated that the costs of the national mandatory bioengineered food disclosure standard would range from $569 million to $3.9 billion for the first year, with ongoing annual costs of between $51 million and $117 million. And you have to wonder if the new requirements will further strain our food supply chain. 

You can’t judge a book by its cover, nor, apparently, food by its label.