• 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

anatta

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2013
Messages
24,264
Reaction score
10,362
Location
daily dukkha
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
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
 
Last edited:
It won't for me, because I generally don't buy much processed food. However simpler labels that make clearer the content of the food are helpful for anyone who is looking to eat healthier.
 
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.
 
I already do the math, watch my sodium, protein, fats, and carbs and calories. Doesn't change any eating pattern for me (except to stay on my constant damn diet) :roll:
 
I'm not sure if you're already watching calories, sodium, carbs, fat, sugar, etc that it helps enough, to offset any price increases, they pass down for larger print costs.

But making them list hidden sugar content or other info is a plus.
 
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 to promote plan for food label overhaul

I like the change personally. It won't effect me because I rarely eat processed foods.

It's so silly really . . . do any of us know anyone who, when they go get some ice cream, serve themselves a half-cup? "Typical serving sizes" are a lot more truthful.

I think the FDA could get more involved with fast-food nutrition information. Yeah, it's there now, but it should be on every food item they serve. Right on the package. In a type-size people can read.

Edit: Until we all begin to get educated about processed foods, we will continue having an obesity epidemic in our country. Food manufacturers who make processed foods are making chum, not food. Carefully engineered and crafted in laboratories to produce cravings and to not stop eating when we're full. It's a shame, really.
 
Last edited:
There's labels on food?
 
I don't buy meals, I buy ingreadiants. The nutritional info for meats and flour and eggs and veggies etc hasn't changed much.
 
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 to promote plan for food label overhaul

While any additional information is good, I feel the labels will still fall short for many people.

Not the calories per se, but what is actually in certain prepared foods.

What, exactly, is in the umbrella word 'spices'?
Does the prepared food (or unprepared food, for that matter) contain GMOs?

There are many more bits of information that are important to a great many people, these are a just a couple that could be included IMO.
 
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 to promote plan for food label overhaul

No way, I will eat what I want to eat when I want to eat it. To me all that stuff is just a waste of label space where a pretty picture could appear. Perhaps the only one in my family that might be effected would be my youngest daughter. But she doesn't pay any attention to the calorie count, only what is in the food itself and that is sometimes, not all the time. This is probably a more of a feel good thing than actually helping people. Although some will pay attention, but those are probably the ones who pay attention to this stuff now. Not new comers.
 
won't change my eating habits, because i already look at the labels. however, it will make shopping easier, and serving sizes really should be more realistic. i mean, sometimes serving sizes are just ridiculous.

it would also be nice if they'd stop doing the "hide the nutritional info under a fold in the candy bar / protein bar wrapper" thing. sometimes you almost have to open the damned thing just to find out how many calories it has.

as for the new lower salt recommendations, no thanks. i already eat limited cal / low fat for the most part. leave my salt alone.
 
I like the change personally. It won't effect me because I rarely eat processed foods.

It's so silly really . . . do any of us know anyone who, when they go get some ice cream, serve themselves a half-cup? "Typical serving sizes" are a lot more truthful.

I think the FDA could get more involved with fast-food nutrition information. Yeah, it's there now, but it should be on every food item they serve. Right on the package. In a type-size people can read.

Edit: Until we all begin to get educated about processed foods, we will continue having an obesity epidemic in our country. Food manufacturers who make processed foods are making chum, not food. Carefully engineered and crafted in laboratories to produce cravings and to not stop eating when we're full. It's a shame, really.


They purposely make processed foods addicting and we have restaurants that think portion size is for 300lb+, 6'8" athletes.
 
Maybe some believe this great.

I have tired of the patriarchal pandering poppycock of purported protective policies pained upon a pusillanimous and properly penitent populace who postures prostrate to the penultimate posits of plutocracy.

Simply, I do not desire or need protection from myself.

Enjoy life

Thom Paine
 
From what I've heard it's a change in emphasis to calories and serving size, which is a change from prior emphasis on fat and salt content. The problem with the ingredient portion of the labels is that the word "natural" doesn't necessarily mean healthy, and many ingredients come under that category. Just like the word "uncaged" or "free roaming" don't always mean what you think.

I won't know til I see the label whether it changes anything for me.
 
They purposely make processed foods addicting and we have restaurants that think portion size is for 300lb+, 6'8" athletes.

I like restaurants like that, what I don't eat in the restaurant, I take home for supper. Two meals for the price of one.
 
Maybe some believe this great.

I have tired of the patriarchal pandering poppycock of purported protective policies pained upon a pusillanimous and properly penitent populace who postures prostrate to the penultimate posits of plutocracy.

Simply, I do not desire or need protection from myself.

Enjoy life

Thom Paine

Providing information about what you are consuming is not a 'protective policy', it is giving you the knowledge to make informed choices. No one is telling you how much you should eat, or what you should eat (which would be a 'protective policy') just what is in the food you are consuming.

There are some who need to know what they are eating, not just want to know.
 
Making the labels easier to read is a good idea, as is eliminating the misleading "portion size" game that some of the manufacturers like to play. If a package that most people would eat in a single setting contains 3 "servings", and the calorie count is 300 per serving, let's be honest and admit that there are 900 calories in a package. Some people will do the math, others will just glance at the calorie count.

Oh, and I have a great free app on my phone called "Fooducate". Scan the bar code, and it grades the food item for nutritional value on a D to A rating. It's free, and I recommend it for anyone interested in what is really going into their bodies.

Next step: That chicken that is slaughtered in North America and sent to China for processing: Let's insist that it be labeled as a product of China and not of North America.
 
I like restaurants like that, what I don't eat in the restaurant, I take home for supper. Two meals for the price of one.

I have the discipline now to do the same. But buffets and large portions encourage some less experienced, younger folks to over eat. I don't think they should force restaurants to offer less portions but our culture could address the problem in other ways, thru information.
 
I like restaurants like that, what I don't eat in the restaurant, I take home for supper. Two meals for the price of one.

More like 2 meals for the price of 10 (home cooked).
 
Making the labels easier to read is a good idea, as is eliminating the misleading "portion size" game that some of the manufacturers like to play. If a package that most people would eat in a single setting contains 3 "servings", and the calorie count is 300 per serving, let's be honest and admit that there are 900 calories in a package. Some people will do the math, others will just glance at the calorie count.

Oh, and I have a great free app on my phone called "Fooducate". Scan the bar code, and it grades the food item for nutritional value on a D to A rating. It's free, and I recommend it for anyone interested in what is really going into their bodies.

Next step: That chicken that is slaughtered in North America and sent to China for processing: Let's insist that it be labeled as a product of China and not of North America.

Excellent reference for the Fooducate app! I had used the online version before, but hadn't thought about the app since I got my new phone. :thumbs:
 
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


This is wonderful legislation. Good to see the Obama administration do something useful that will help people.
 
Making the labels easier to read is a good idea, as is eliminating the misleading "portion size" game that some of the manufacturers like to play. If a package that most people would eat in a single setting contains 3 "servings", and the calorie count is 300 per serving, let's be honest and admit that there are 900 calories in a package. Some people will do the math, others will just glance at the calorie count.

Oh, and I have a great free app on my phone called "Fooducate". Scan the bar code, and it grades the food item for nutritional value on a D to A rating. It's free, and I recommend it for anyone interested in what is really going into their bodies.

Next step: That chicken that is slaughtered in North America and sent to China for processing: Let's insist that it be labeled as a product of China and not of North America.

I agree. I don't buy any food items from China (among others), and I hate having to look all over the packaging to find the source country. They intentionally try to hide it.
 
I wonder if I will live to see the day when America ISN'T the fattest nation on earth.
 
If a package that most people would eat in a single setting contains 3 "servings", and the calorie count is 300 per serving, let's be honest and admit that there are 900 calories in a package. Some people will do the math, others will just glance at the calorie count.

I would argue that if your diet is such that a 900 cal. package of ANYTHING is a possible food choice there is no way to parse nutrition information in a manner that it might benefit you.

I would actually argue that unless you're already in the camp that is eating "whole" you either don't know or care enough about nutrition to benefit from this.

The biggest effect this will have is that people will now knowingly, and happily, continue to serve their children 800 cal. worth of Cheese Wiz rather than laboring under the illusion that their customary and enormous glop-serving was a mere 400 cal.
 
Back
Top Bottom