Start with fat. Ours is, without doubt, the land of the well rested and portly, of chubby masses yearning to be fat-free. So the label police have declared that fat content should be advertised as a percent of calories, not as a percent of the weight. But then, fat as a percentage of calories in any given pork rind is far less important than rinds as a percentage of calories in any given diet. The ratio of rinds to broccoli matters much more than does the fattiness of the occasional rind.
Total calories are more important still.
But of course it's impossible for anyone but me to regulate my annual tonnage of rinds plus broccoli, so the label constabulary sets out, instead, to monitor fat by the bite. Meanwhile, other label censors have made quite sure that no one who buys a McDonald's shake should ever hear mention of milk or ice cream. After all, the consumer who thinks he's getting something from a cow has a right to his full ration of honest butterfat. And headed for the Supreme Court this fall is a case that will decide whether the federally prescribed warning label on cigarettes cuts off state courts' power to impose liability for inadequate warning. Expect here a raft of arguments that the labels aren't graphic enough or are typed too small, or are undercut by the Marlboro Man.