• 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
Muhammed said:
That simply isn't true. If a food has added sugars they are on the ingredients list.
Click to expand...

both are true. Calories will be larger lettering and any added sugars will be noted.
 
annata said:
and any added sugars will be noted.
Click to expand...
Not for the first time, as you claimed. They have always been on the ingredients list. Therefore your statement was a falsehood.
 
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...

Nope - I only label-check when I need to watch what I'm eating.

Otherwise: I really don't care. I think people make a fuss over nothing. The vast majority of people, even that 25% who don't know the earth revolves around the sun, know that junk food is bad and fruits and veggies are good.

We don't need packaging to tell us this.
 
I don't usually encounter food labels except on snacks, if that.
And then I usually don't look for the calorie content so much as what is actually in the food (contents/ingredients).
I attempt to avoid food that has lots of chemicals and such in that section.

Most of what I eat, however, does not have labels on it.

-------------------
That said, I do not think this goes far enough.

Food should be labeled so that it lists everything in the ingredients.
Food should be labeled so that it lists the calorie content and all related stats (sodium, sugar, etc, etc, whatever) for the entire volume in the container - then a suggested serving size, with the values for that.

Cause you know damn well someone out there buys a "family size" bag of potato chips and eats the whole damn thing in one sitting.
-----------------
But another thing - the stats on the labels aren't really the whole story about what you're eating - some forms of fat are good for you, some are bad, some forms of sugar are better for you than others, some oils are better than others, etc, etc, and so on.
----

Edit:

And what's with the "natural (and/or artificial) flavors" I see on various labels. That seems like BS to me - anything could be a "flavor".
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
Not for the first time, as you claimed. They have always been on the ingredients list. Therefore your statement was a falsehood.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the label, but the ingredients are not the same as noting them on the label.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Nope - I only label-check when I need to watch what I'm eating.

Otherwise: I really don't care. I think people make a fuss over nothing. The vast majority of people, even that 25% who don't know the earth revolves around the sun, know that junk food is bad and fruits and veggies are good.

We don't need packaging to tell us this.
Click to expand...

where it really helps is pre-packaged foods; sodium /fats/ carbs - even protein to an extent - is quite varied. If you don't eat processed/pre packaged foods, more the better
 
annata said:
where it really helps is pre-packaged foods; sodium /fats/ carbs - even protein to an extent - is quite varied. If you don't eat processed/pre packaged foods, more the better
Click to expand...

I think what's really skewed is 'portion size' - people just eat too much of everything. I've had good success losing weight just by eating less food overall - not by counting numbers and depriving myself of good this and thats.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I think what's really skewed is 'portion size' - people just eat too much of everything. I've had good success losing weight just by eating less food overall - not by counting numbers and depriving myself of good this and thats.
Click to expand...
calories are the main portion control. Gotta eat less if one wants weight to come off.
I keep my carbs down though (seems to help in general) the "added sugars" on the label will specifically help me there. Plus I just don't want that junk.
 
American said:
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.
Click to expand...

Exactly, they are simply moving the focus. Processed foods will continue to contain unpronounceable crap that isn't food and isn't good for you. Now they just going to focus more on calories and serving size.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Excitotoxins is a term I never heard before until my wife told me about it. It's why Frito-Lay used to say Lay's Potato Chips: "Bet You Can't Eat Just One." Well, hell no, we couldn't! They made sure of that by adding excitoxins, as does almost every other manufacturer of snack "foods". Snack my ass. Eating a half a bag of Cheetos at one sitting isn't having a snack. It ain't food either. I stay the heck away from processed foods. I don't touch "snack" "foods".

Today, more than 70 excitotoxins lurk in most packaged and processed foods, including soups, sauces, gravy mixes, frozen dinners, diet foods, beverages, chips, and fast foods. The main culprits are MSG, aspartame (NutraSweet), cysteine, hydrolyzed protein, and aspartic acid.

Unfortunately, MSG goes by at least 30 different names on food labels, including, as I mentioned, the simple and oh-so-harmless-seeming word, “spice.” Lippman’s office provides a handout with a detailed list of hidden names for excitotoxins.

----

Blaylock says that we now “know that the excitotoxic process plays a major role in many life-threatening maladies.” He cites possible associations between excitotoxins and a slew of serious health conditions, including:
• strokes
• brain injury
• brain tumors
• degenerative brain diseases (Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and Lou Gehrig’s disease)
• meningitis
• neurological Lyme disease
• encephalitis
• schizophrenia
Click to expand...
 
Risky Thicket said:
Exactly, they are simply moving the focus. Processed foods will continue to contain unpronounceable crap that isn't food and isn't good for you. Now they just going to focus more on calories and serving size.
Click to expand...

I think the value of fat content has been brought into question by some studies, and that it isn't as bad for you as first thought. My philosophy is generally that everything in moderation, excluding poisons and death of course. :mrgreen:
 
American said:
I think the value of fat content has been brought into question by some studies, and that it isn't as bad for you as first thought. My philosophy is generally that everything in moderation, excluding poisons and death of course. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I've been eating a Paleo/Primal diet for a while now. I've read the same thing about fat content and I hope it is correct. I hear you about avoiding death. Death has been know to kill people. ;)
 
Risky Thicket said:
I've been eating a Paleo/Primal diet for a while now. I've read the same thing about fat content and I hope it is correct. I hear you about avoiding death. Death has been know to kill people. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know about the Paleo diet because I think there's a assumption that somehow those people were healthier than us, because our bodies were designed to eat that food. Considering that humans are omnivores, I'm not so sure about that.
 
American said:
I don't know about the Paleo diet because I think there's a assumption that somehow those people were healthier than us, because our bodies were designed to eat that food. Considering that humans are omnivores, I'm not so sure about that.
Click to expand...

Vegetables are bout a third of what I eat everyday, often more than a third. I do not eat grains or legumes. I do eat eggs, but no milk or cheese. I don't eat high carb plants or fruits.
 
Didn't the primal diet, paleo diet, whatever you call the foods eaten by primitive man, include a lot of six legged foods?

Maybe that's the key. Grasshoppers, ants, and termites.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Vegetables are bout a third of what I eat everyday, often more than a third. I do not eat grains or legumes. I do eat eggs, but no milk or cheese. I don't eat high carb plants or fruits.
Click to expand...

So nothing fermented?
 
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...

Any revision to nutrition labels to make them simpler is good, however it's not enough. They need to completely overhaul the "servings" asshattery that in so many cases can only be used to confuse, like where there are 3.5 servings, each serving contains 210 calories and a serving is 2oz. Cause, you know, I always bring my gram scale to the supermarket with me. Good thing there's at least a calculator on my smart phone.

I definitely approve of the calorie labels at an increasing number of restaurants as well. The crap they pull on the calorie counts is enormous, such as a rice a roni dish being 750 calories, which they don't tell you is before they add the meat and sauce to it. Nonetheless it's nice to know what neighborhood of calories you're at least walking into, which guided me toward select meals the last time I went to a restaurant.
 
I voted Yes, because the new requirements will cause prices to increase, thereby
changing my choices some.
The report I saw said this change would cost the food industry $2 Billion,
Does any one think they will eat that cost? (subtle pun)
 
longview said:
I voted Yes, because the new requirements will cause prices to increase, thereby
changing my choices some.
The report I saw said this change would cost the food industry $2 Billion,
Does any one think they will eat that cost? (subtle pun)
Click to expand...

Does that mean $2 billion more than the old labels, or just $2 billion for printing all those labels? Why should the new labels cost any more than the old ones?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Does that mean $2 billion more than the old labels, or just $2 billion for printing all those labels? Why should the new labels cost any more than the old ones?
Click to expand...
They just said that on the news, I would guess retooling.
 
We do look at food labels and I like the changes. But I also don't see any issue about it.
 
I've been a label reader for most of my life, so it won't change my habits any at all, except that it might give me a few more choices to consider.
 
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.
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom