Discrimination against shoppers who cant read

Owain_Moneysaver

!!!!!! wrote: »

1. Try to convince every single food producer who sells in the UK to put a picture of the food on every package. - No chance.

Why not - it wouldn't actually cost anything other than label redesign, which they do periodically anyway, and most products have pictures on them - it just seems to be the Value style ranges that don't, presumably because the downmarket plain packaging makes it look like it offers better value (Tesco Value Tartar Sauce is 2p more than Tesco Ordinary Tartar Sauce, same size jar).

A lot of the two-colour labels are probably printed on a 4-colour press anyway, so no extra cost there either.

geordie_joe

jack_of_all wrote: »

Hello everyone, this is my first post. I can read, but I shop for some people who cant read and live on benefits. I would like to buy them some of the best value supermarket brands but often I can't because they don't know what is in the packaging. I feel that all products should have some image of the contents by law, people who cant read are more likely to have lower incomes. I'd like to ask if others have experienced this problem trying to save money for people who need this kind of support.

Sorry, but I still don't understand this.

You are saying that you can't buy them value brands because they won't know what is in the packaging. But how do they know what is in the packaging of the items you bought them last week?

How did they know what was in the packaging the first time they cooked for them selves after leaving home?

Do they really look at the picture on the packaging to find out what is inside, or have they simply learned to recognise the package as a whole?

Have you actually asked them if they would like to try a new brand that is cheaper? Or are you just assuming they wouldn't be able to cope with having an item they have never had before in their cupboards.

Just because someone can't read, or is disabled, it doesn't mean they are stupid. They develop ways of coping with their short comings and get by fine.

calleyw

geordie_joe wrote: »

How did they feed their babies then? If there wasn't a picture of a baby on the package they wouldn't know it was baby food.

I believe that they put pictures on to say what is in the product and not who the product was for.

So put a picture of a baby on a front of jar or packet and what does it say it contains.

Yes that right babies.

Yours

Calley

geordie_joe

calleyw wrote: »

I believe that they put pictures on to say what is in the product and not who the product was for.

So put a picture of a baby on a front of jar or packet and what does it say it contains.

Yes that right babies.

Yours

Calley

But you have taken one sentence and quoted it out of context to make yourself look clever.

The post I was was replying to said that people in certain countries in africa were so illiterate that they had to put pictures on the products to show what was in them. But they took the picture of a baby off the baby food as it was considered bad taste.

My point was, if they have taken the picture off, how do the people know what is in it, or what it is for. They can only tell by the picture on the product, therefore a product with no picture will be of no use to them as they won't know what is inside, or what it is for.

The people may not be able to read, but they aren't stupid. They won't have to open many tins of baby milk to realise that having a picture of a baby on the front doesn't mean there is a baby inside the tin.

Or do you really think they had a baby, went out and bought a tin with a picture of a baby on the front and thought they would be having tinned baby for lunch.

Of course not, even people who can't read can work out that having a baby on the front means the food inside is suitable for babies. They won't be disappointed when there is not a ready to eat baby inside the tin.

geordie_joe

calleyw wrote: »

I believe that they put pictures on to say what is in the product and not who the product was for.

I think you'll find most pictures on packages are "Serving Suggestions".

If the picture on the front was an indication of what is inside then almost all packaging would contain lettuce.

Some would contain Jolly Green Gaints too!

calleyw

geordie_joe wrote: »

But you have taken one sentence and quoted it out of context to make yourself look clever.

Nope not trying to make myself clever but then I don't try and belittle people either.

But that is what the supposed reason was for removing the picture. That people thought it contained babies. Most likely a urban legend. Rather like some stories about cars that did not sell well in certain countries because of the translation of car names.

Granted most people would understand it did not and not all illiterate are stupid and I am not suggesting that so don't try and put words in to my mouth.

And another poster suggested that people would know what packets would contain because of the shape and size of a packet. Not true as not everyone understand that, it is all to do cultural and social upbringing and only what I can all common sense.

I can't say what goes through somebody mind when they look at a packet and what they think. The same as when people post. I assumed that because the OP was working for someone doing their shopping it was not just someone who was illiterate. But someone who could not cope on their own due to some disablity. Be it due to physical or mental imparement.

Most people take for granted simple things such as shopping. I mean I was waitrose the other day and they had packets of sandwich meat with a drawing of sandwich of it. I know it's a serving suggestion. But someone who has a literal way of thinking might think it means it includes the sandwich and not understand when they open it. Even though the packet would not be the same size or shape as a sandwich packet.

Someone who is partially sighted with no mental imparement would most likely understand when they look closely at the packet that it would just be the meat and not a sandwich. So we should not assume that everyone can process data the same way as people without an imparement, as culture etc has an effect on what they see, think and understand.

I do feel for the OP as it must be very hard and no easy answer. Apart from getting someone like RNIB involved. They might be able to campaign on your behalf.

Yours

Calley

WhiteHorse

Techno wrote:

Does it really matter whether the person can't read because they are illiterate, don't read English, are visually impaired or learning disabled? They all have the same problems.

No they don't. There is a world of difference between being blind, unable to understand, or simply illiterate.

This is close to fanaticism.

xycom1

Couldn't you draw a picture on for them with permanent marker? Or get them signed up to a class to teach them to read?

eira

Have worked for years with adults and children with communication difficulties. There are people who are functionally illiterate and who will never learn to read. However they stilll have to find their way around and choose things in shops. This is what I've done (the ideas come from the students I've taught)

a) Use memory to learn logos etc
b)Get a variety of packets/labels/advertisements-talk about shapes/colours/anything that stands out for the individual
c)Make up scrapbooks/cards of favourite products and match them up in the supermarket (you could maybe do this online initially)
d) you can do games of matching labels to magazine ads (it has to be colour as you are helping them pick up on anything that helps)

chalkysoil

eranou wrote: »

or carry a pen and just draw a little picture of what's inside after you have bought it

On holiday in Portugal, out of season, I was trying to order some food in a local cafe. I drew a picture of rice. The 4 waiters were convulsed in laughter. Some one produced a dictionary and it turned out they thought I wanted maggots.

I wonder if the OP has a staff association or other contact to discuss it with? There might be a source of cheap stickers someone has found, like a tomato picture for the top of the tin.