• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

will new food labels chage your eating habits?

will new food labeling change or help your food picks??

  • yes, it's much clearer, i'll be able to watch my nutrition easily

    Votes: 5 12.8%

  • yes: previously i hadn't looked at food labels

    Votes: 1 2.6%

  • no - I don't care what the label says, it doesn't influence my diet

    Votes: 10 25.6%

  • no: I already look at food labels, and this isn't going to change my diet

    Votes: 25 64.1%
  • Total voters
    39
Gipper said:
I'm against them. It encourages people to continue to suck at math.

We should make things more challenging - not "dumbing it down" for our American Idol-loving populace.
Click to expand...

Right, right, let's label the foods with calories per gram, and let the consumer figure it out. That will improve math skills.
 
grip said:
American Idol sucks. It's a bunch of canned, teenage talent displayed in a phony manner. The judges look like the 3 Stooges.


The labels are no big deal with larger print, but forcing companies to NOT hide, unhealthy ingredients is a +1.
Click to expand...

It's not as if people who actually look at labels cannot find out otherwise. There may be an exception to the workout granny with glaucoma, but everyone else knows the calorie count if they want to know the calorie count.

I'm guessing that I won't go around hearing, "damn, I had no idea pudding was so bad for me".
 
Dittohead not! said:
Right, right, let's label the foods with calories per gram, and let the consumer figure it out. That will improve math skills.
Click to expand...

Well, wouldn't it? It'd go ahead and Darwin out the tards who had no idea that 2 cups of syrup on a short stack may not be the best thing to do.
 
Gipper said:
Well, wouldn't it? It'd go ahead and Darwin out the tards who had no idea that 2 cups of syrup on a short stack may not be the best thing to do.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the "tards" actually are capable of reading the labels in the first place, let alone be able to figure out how many calories constitute a reasonable consumption.
 
Anything to stop people from trying to blame companies for their poor eating habits.

No one made you eat that Big Mac.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm not so sure the "tards" actually are capable of reading the labels in the first place, let alone be able to figure out how many calories constitute a reasonable consumption.
Click to expand...

There you go. Acceptable losses.

We need to revoke the inability to drop medical coverage though.
 
Gipper said:
It's not as if people who actually look at labels cannot find out otherwise. There may be an exception to the workout granny with glaucoma, but everyone else knows the calorie count if they want to know the calorie count.

I'm guessing that I won't go around hearing, "damn, I had no idea pudding was so bad for me".
Click to expand...

Some people don't want added calories from sugar, though I admit, whether they're from sugar, carbs or protein isn't a big diff.

Here's a label example of the changes. Not much there.


140226135852-new-nutrition-facts-restricted-horizontal-gallery.jpg
 
annata said:
Calorie counts would appear in larger, bolder type, and consumers would know for the first time whether foods have added sugars.

Under the Obama administration's plan, labels would also feature more realistic descriptions of a serving.
Under the plans, a 20oz (0.5kg) container of soda would count as one serving, rather than 2.5 servings, as it is currently.

The serving size listed on ice cream cartons, currently half a cup, would increase to one cup.
The food label revisions would also include mandatory potassium and vitamin D amounts.

BBC News - Michelle Obama promotes plan for food label overhaul
Click to expand...
It won't change my eating habits because I already look at labels.But I do think its dishonest to label a pack of ramen or a 16oz soda as two servings and we should know what exactly they are putting in our food and where it comes from and whether or not it is a GMO food.
 
I already read labels, and pretty much know what's in what (for the most part).

I don't think these changes will affect many people's habits, though as a matter of general policy I am all for the providing of information.
 
grip said:
Some people don't want added calories from sugar, though I admit, whether they're from sugar, carbs or protein isn't a big diff.

Here's a label example of the changes. Not much there.


View attachment 67162817
Click to expand...

not a big difference, but i'd rather ingest something other then empty calories (added sugars).
Might even start a trend line where food processors do not feel the need to load up everything with sodium, and sucrose.
 
annata said:
Calorie counts would appear in larger, bolder type, and consumers would know for the first time whether foods have added sugars.

Under the Obama administration's plan, labels would also feature more realistic descriptions of a serving.
Under the plans, a 20oz (0.5kg) container of soda would count as one serving, rather than 2.5 servings, as it is currently.

The serving size listed on ice cream cartons, currently half a cup, would increase to one cup.
The food label revisions would also include mandatory potassium and vitamin D amounts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26371692
Click to expand...


Haha. ..no. it's not gonna change how or what I eat.

Look. Most people know that a serving size of ice cream isn't a Jethro bowl. .they choose to eat enough for 6 people.

They treat people as if they are stupid instead of apathetic.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Haha. ..no. it's not gonna change how or what I eat.

Look. Most people know that a serving size of ice cream isn't a Jethro bowl. .they choose to eat enough for 6 people.

They treat people as if they are stupid instead of apathetic.
Click to expand...

All too many people are both.
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Haha. ..no. it's not gonna change how or what I eat.

Look. Most people know that a serving size of ice cream isn't a Jethro bowl. .they choose to eat enough for 6 people.

They treat people as if they are stupid instead of apathetic.
Click to expand...

Don't disagree, but food companies know that a reasonable serving size of ice cream isn't a tablespoon, either, regardless what their labels say. Issues like this are commonly framed as being for the benefit of stupid people, but I think they're just as much geared toward deceptive companies.

Example: When labeling first came out soft drink companies would label a 12 oz can of soda as "2.5 servings". The government... in a rare moment of reasonableness... spoke up and said, "Seriously, who drinks only 2/5 of a can of soda at a time? Pretty much no one, that's who. A serving is 1 can. Label it as such." (paraphrased, of course)
 
TheGirlNextDoor said:
Haha. ..no. it's not gonna change how or what I eat.

Look. Most people know that a serving size of ice cream isn't a Jethro bowl. .they choose to eat enough for 6 people.
Click to expand...
For some people that is a serving, which is why "serving size" should not even be on a "Nutrition Facts" label. The fact of the matter is that serving sizes are solely at the discretion of the server.
 
radcen said:
Don't disagree, but food companies know that a reasonable serving size of ice cream isn't a tablespoon, either, regardless what their labels say. Issues like this are commonly framed as being for the benefit of stupid people, but I think they're just as much geared toward deceptive companies.
Click to expand...
They are geared for the government to deceive the people.

radcen said:
Example: When labeling first came out soft drink companies would label a 12 oz can of soda as "2.5 servings". The government... in a rare moment of reasonableness... spoke up and said, "Seriously, who drinks only 2/5 of a can of soda at a time? Pretty much no one, that's who. A serving is 1 can. Label it as such." (paraphrased, of course)
Click to expand...
For some people 1 can is not a serving. A serving is less or more than that. Therefore it is a ****ing lie to represent that as a "Nutrition Fact".
 
Muhammed said:
For some people that is a serving, which is why "serving size" should not even be on a "Nutrition Facts" label. The fact of the matter is that serving sizes are solely at the discretion of the server.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Nutrition facts should be per container or, in the case of bulk or large volume items, by weight/volume measurement.
 
Labels are helpful to some extent but nothing replaces common sense. IMHO more important than the labels are the ingredients listed in any product. Common sense tells you the closest to the natural state of a food item the better. A good example is margarine versus butter. Butter is natural and the ingredients in margarine are equivalent to plastic fat. Natural cheese over processed cheese food. Unbleached flour over bleached. Natural sweeteners (honey, pure maple syrup) over refined sugars that have many names. If I had to pick the worst culprit it would be refined sugar as it is in just about every processed food. We have a nation full of sugarholics and they get addicted at a very young age. Moms and Dad both work these days so junior gets a bowl of sugary cereal or a Pop tart for breakfast out of convenience. In his lunch box a PB&J sandwich (peanut butter/jelly can have high levels of sugar smeared on bread made of bleached flour that has little nutritional value and converts to sugar). Or maybe one of those pre-packaged Lunchables full of processed food with high sugar, sodium and fat content and a pre-packaged juice box (more sugar) to wash it all down. For convenience since mom/dad just put a full day in at work, a run through the drive thru for fast food is on the menu for dinner. It's a proven fact that sugar affects a child's behavior in a bad way and by the time they are teens more and more are facing serious health issues because of it. The less refined sugar you allow your children, the more they appreciate the natural sweetness in fruits and vegetables. Most children are not big fans of vegetables unless they are potatoes and corn (sugar). Getting them to eat anything green can be a real challenge. You have to get creative. You make chili with V8 juice, puree spinach or any green veggie and mix it in the meatloaf.
 
Muhammed said:
They are geared for the government to deceive the people.

For some people 1 can is not a serving. A serving is less or more than that. Therefore it is a ****ing lie to represent that as a "Nutrition Fact".
Click to expand...
If the serving size is not defined, then the calorie count is meaningless.
 
vesper said:
Labels are helpful to some extent but nothing replaces common sense. IMHO more important than the labels are the ingredients listed in any product. Common sense tells you the closest to the natural state of a food item the better. A good example is margarine versus butter. Butter is natural and the ingredients in margarine are equivalent to plastic fat. Natural cheese over processed cheese food. Unbleached flour over bleached. Natural sweeteners (honey, pure maple syrup) over refined sugars that have many names. If I had to pick the worst culprit it would be refined sugar as it is in just about every processed food. We have a nation full of sugarholics and they get addicted at a very young age. Moms and Dad both work these days so junior gets a bowl of sugary cereal or a Pop tart for breakfast out of convenience. In his lunch box a PB&J sandwich (peanut butter/jelly can have high levels of sugar smeared on bread made of bleached flour that has little nutritional value and converts to sugar). Or maybe one of those pre-packaged Lunchables full of processed food with high sugar, sodium and fat content and a pre-packaged juice box (more sugar) to wash it all down. For convenience since mom/dad just put a full day in at work, a run through the drive thru for fast food is on the menu for dinner. It's a proven fact that sugar affects a child's behavior in a bad way and by the time they are teens more and more are facing serious health issues because of it. The less refined sugar you allow your children, the more they appreciate the natural sweetness in fruits and vegetables. Most children are not big fans of vegetables unless they are potatoes and corn (sugar). Getting them to eat anything green can be a real challenge. You have to get creative. You make chili with V8 juice, puree spinach or any green veggie and mix it in the meatloaf.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

One of my daughters has a Masters in Nutrition, and I feel like I have just had a chat with her, just by reading your post! :thanks: :thumbs: She lives in Texas, unfortunately, but she is one of the best cooks I have ever met. I'm told that I am also a great cook, but I have had to ask her for recipes, because what she cooks just tastes soooo good! :mrgreen: You're never too old to learn, I guess!
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:

One of my daughters has a Masters in Nutrition, and I feel like I have just had a chat with her, just by reading your post! :thanks: :thumbs: She lives in Texas, unfortunately, but she is one of the best cooks I have ever met. I'm told that I am also a great cook, but I have had to ask her for recipes, because what she cooks just tastes soooo good! :mrgreen: You're never too old to learn, I guess!
Click to expand...

Thank you Polgara. When I became responsible for little ones, nutritional values of foods became very important to me because I wanted them to grow up as healthy as possible. It meant getting up a half an hour earlier to prepare a good breakfast and prep food the night before to pack a good lunch. Those years I worked, my days off would be spent preparing meals ahead of time and became the master of the crockpot to avoid fast food. When I got married I could not cook. That was something I had to first learn. My poor husband lost weight ( that he didn't need to lose) the first year we were married because my cooking was so bad. But that changed. All of the effort has been well worth it :)
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the serving size is not defined, then the calorie count is meaningless.
Click to expand...
Of course it is meaningful, especially if someone is trying to keep track of their calories. Explain why you think it would be meaningless?
 
Dittohead not! said:
If the serving size is not defined, then the calorie count is meaningless.
Click to expand...

Sometimes even then it is basically meaningless. Labeling a 20 oz. soda as being 2.5 servings, or a 12 oz. soda as 1.5 servings, is just plain silly. Other servings are described by weight, e.g. breakfast cereal; under that scheme, plain corn flakes and sugar frosted flakes have the same calories per serving. People put cereal in a bowl based on volume, not weight, so the fact that sugar weighs more than corn flakes not considered at all.
 
radcen said:
I already read labels, and pretty much know what's in what (for the most part).

I don't think these changes will affect many people's habits, though as a matter of general policy I am all for the providing of information.
Click to expand...
The problem is that the labels have so much government mandated disinformation on them.
 
Except when I'm lazy, which really isn't all that often, I eat very little processed food so it makes little difference to me.
 
Your Star said:
Yeah, I already look at the food labels. Mainly for the calorie count, but it's nice to know the other stuff as well.

Though, I agree with this law. Simpler labels will help people make better choices.
Click to expand...

Even if they don't make better choices, the right to do so with the best possible information should be available.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom