"sf" wrote in message news
On Sat, 05 Nov 2011 23:05:54 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>
> What I thought was rather dumb though, was the printing of the
> contents. They reduced the font size to about half what it used to
> be. In a world with an aging population, it was a real gnat brained
> idiot that came up with that idea. He/she should be fired, along with
> the manager that approved the label.
>
> I have good eyesight (wearing glasses) and standing at normal height,
> I could not read the product description of the meat in the display
> case.
>
> I did not see the manager when I was there, but just sent a message to
> Customer Service.

You don't think that was calculated? I bet they are laughing at the
people who need a magnifying glass to read the print. They've
satisfied legal requirements and made sure a lot of people can't read
it.

--
All you need is love. But a little chocolate now and then doesn't hurt.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

I think you're right...but one way to stop their laughter would be to inform
the manager that you are changing your shopping habits and will now
patronize one of the stores that uses *readable* labels. And then do it.

On a related note (and this isn't anything that an individual pharmacy can
control), one of my pet peeves is the way some over-the-counter
pharmaceuticals have (1) reduced the size of print so that it is now
basically unreadable and (2) sometimes have labels where the
dosage--including maximum use--can only be read by peeling back the label
and reading underneath. That is inconvenient and can even be dangerous. Of
course, there are also those stores that paste the price tag on top of the
instructions!

MaryL