[simoncion]

_Maybe_. That'd take up more space on the packaging, and things with small packages may not have enough space to put the whole table.

What do you do when the package is too small to contain the whole table? Do you leave things off? Now all of a sudden your standard table isn't so standard. Do you make the table smaller? Make it too small and folks who can't see well are proper fucked.

I'm not saying your idea is BAD, but I am saying that it's likely the FDA thought about it and rejected it for not-entirely-unreasonable reasons.

[JoshTriplett]

That's an entirely valid concern. It's already true for today's "nutrition facts" labels, though, and the solution for those is that tiny packages say "not labeled for individual sale".

[simoncion]

True.

However, I find it difficult to believe that an easily-read, sufficiently-comprehensive table would fit on small packages. Marking even more things as "not labeled for individual sale" just because a new table that aims to be helpful [0] won't fit on their packaging seems to me to be a generally bad thing.

[0] And also aims to replace existing allergenic ingredient class warnings that do fit on the current packaging...