• 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
It may help those who are looking to make better choices, but doughnut and hamburger addicts?
For those who care, portion size is easily learned at home and we can find plenty of useful information on the net. This is just one example
Decrease Portion Sizes
Restaurant food sizes can be adjusted by sharing or taking home leftovers, but lower sodium choices are more limited.
 
It may help those who are looking to make better choices
How in the hell would it do that. I challenge you to give a single scenario where those changes to the "Nutrition Facts" label could possibly be helpful in any way shape or form.
 
From the OP:

Calorie counts will appear in larger, bolder type, and consumers will know for the first time whether foods have added sugars.​

I never looked at labels, but two years ago my Hemoglobin A1C count was 7.0 and that made me change my diet. In case that term is foreign to you, you should know that anything above 5.6 is considered diabetic. Nasty stuff, you should have it checked.

Insulin that is produced by the pancreas allows the glucose to enter the body's cells, if there is not enough of it the glucose permanently attaches to the red blood cells and stays in your blood stream until it dies.

A1C Test, Hemoglobin A1C Test
 
Of course it is meaningful, especially if someone is trying to keep track of their calories. Explain why you think it would be meaningless?

Calorie count for this food is 80.

If I'm counting calories, do I count 80 if I eat a forkful? A bowlful? A gram? A pound?
 
What would your version of the ideal nutrition label look like?
For starters, if something is not a fact then it should not be on a "Nutrition Facts" label. Plain and simple. Not being lied to by having opinions misrepresented as facts seems reasonable and prudent to me.

Macronutrients: If you calulate the %DV of macronutrients in the nutrition opinion that the Feds require on the "Nutrition Facts" label, you'll see that what they are doing is promoting a diet that is 18% protein, 29% fat and 53% carbohydrates. And while that ratio of macronutrients may be fine for some people it may be disaterous for others. Actually, a diet that heavy on carbs is likely to make many people obese.

Last time I checked my dietary macronutrient ratio was 23% protein, 41% fat, and 36% carbohydrates. And according to the doc I'm in excellent physical condition. So that ratio is obviously working very well for me.

That %DV opinion should be taken off of the Nutrition Facts label and be replaced with the actual ratio of macronutrients in the product. You know, replace opinion with the actual facts.

Same thing with the micronutrients. Get rid of the opinions and replace it with the actual facts.

Also, the ingredients list needs to be complete and specific. For example, when a product contains vegetable oil the manufacturer should be required to say what kind of vegetable oil.

The Tostitos Scoops I'm using to scoop up some chili right now are labeled thus...

Ingredients: Corn, Vegetable Oil (Corn, Canola and/or Sunflower oil), and Salt.

I think consumers (and researchers) should have the right to know what kind of oil was used to make these tortilla chips. Is it Canola oil? Or is it Sunflower oil? Or Both? I'd like to know because I'm not so convinced that Canola oil is all that fit for human consumption. That's why I'd like to know. And the label being so vague is also a hindrance to research regarding the long-term health effects of Canola oil on humans.

And no more letting manufacturers weasel out of making the ingredients list complete and specific by just using the blanket terms "natural flavors" or "artificial flavors". That should stop too. They should be required to list exactly what those ingredients are.

And another good change would be a requirement that the Nutrition Facts label provide the glycemic index of the product. This would be especially helpful to people like pbrauer who are suffering from diabetes or others who are struggling to control their blood sugar levels.
 
Last edited:
And another good change would be a requirement that the Nutrition Facts label provide the glycemic index of the product. This would be especially helpful to people like pbrauer who are suffering from diabetes or others who are struggling to control their blood sugar levels.
Since my wife is diabetic I decided to pursue this a little and from what I've read the glycemic index is so widely variable, not only from person to person and food to food but even within a specific food type, that any value assigned would be not just a little but woefully inaccurate. After your rant against %DV it's seems a little - uh - ODD that you would even consider such a thing.
 
And no more letting manufacturers weasel out of making the ingredients list complete and specific by just using the blanket terms "natural flavors" or "artificial flavors". That should stop too. They should be required to list exactly what those ingredients are.
That's not going to happen, ever. Food companies are not going to give up their corporate secrets.
 
Somewhat related to this discussion...
I read somewhere that the FDA says "Trans fat" could be listed as 0g on the nutrition info if the food 0.5g or less.
I decided to check up on this, so:
Guidance for Industry: <em>Trans</em> Fatty Acids in Nutrition Labeling, Nutrient Content Claims, Health Claims; Small Entity Compliance Guide
How should trans fatty acids be listed?

Trans fatty acids should be listed as "Trans fat" or "Trans" on a separate line under the listing of saturated fat in the nutrition label. Trans fat content must be expressed as grams per serving to the nearest 0.5-gram increment below 5 grams and to the nearest gram above 5 grams. If a serving contains less than 0.5 gram, the content, when declared, must be expressed as "0 g."
 
For starters, if something is not a fact then it should not be on a "Nutrition Facts" label. Plain and simple. Not being lied to by having opinions misrepresented as facts seems reasonable and prudent to me.

Macronutrients: If you calulate the %DV of macronutrients in the nutrition opinion that the Feds require on the "Nutrition Facts" label, you'll see that what they are doing is promoting a diet that is 18% protein, 29% fat and 53% carbohydrates. And while that ratio of macronutrients may be fine for some people it may be disaterous for others. Actually, a diet that heavy on carbs is likely to make many people obese.

Last time I checked my dietary macronutrient ratio was 23% protein, 41% fat, and 36% carbohydrates. And according to the doc I'm in excellent physical condition. So that ratio is obviously working very well for me.

That %DV opinion should be taken off of the Nutrition Facts label and be replaced with the actual ratio of macronutrients in the product. You know, replace opinion with the actual facts.

Same thing with the micronutrients. Get rid of the opinions and replace it with the actual facts.

Also, the ingredients list needs to be complete and specific. For example, when a product contains vegetable oil the manufacturer should be required to say what kind of vegetable oil.

The Tostitos Scoops I'm using to scoop up some chili right now are labeled thus...

Ingredients: Corn, Vegetable Oil (Corn, Canola and/or Sunflower oil), and Salt.

I think consumers (and researchers) should have the right to know what kind of oil was used to make these tortilla chips. Is it Canola oil? Or is it Sunflower oil? Or Both? I'd like to know because I'm not so convinced that Canola oil is all that fit for human consumption. That's why I'd like to know. And the label being so vague is also a hindrance to research regarding the long-term health effects of Canola oil on humans.

And no more letting manufacturers weasel out of making the ingredients list complete and specific by just using the blanket terms "natural flavors" or "artificial flavors". That should stop too. They should be required to list exactly what those ingredients are.


And another good change would be a requirement that the Nutrition Facts label provide the glycemic index of the product. This would be especially helpful to people like pbrauer who are suffering from diabetes or others who are struggling to control their blood sugar levels.
I think most of your points are valid. I especially agree with the part in red, but I also agree with the other poster who said it won't happen anytime soon.
 
I like the mandatory potassium amount included.

Sodium is a huge problem for those with high blood pressure (which is many Americans and growing) - and the natural way to negate sodium is with potassium at a 2:1 ratio (2 mg potassium cancels out 1 mg of sodium).

So now Americans will have a better knowledge of their food and how to moderate it...especially those with high blood pressure.
 
I like the mandatory potassium amount included.

Sodium is a huge problem for those with high blood pressure (which is many Americans and growing) - and the natural way to negate sodium is with potassium at a 2:1 ratio (2 mg potassium cancels out 1 mg of sodium).

So now Americans will have a better knowledge of their food and how to moderate it...especially those with high blood pressure.
If sodium to potassium ratio is a concern of your's then you shouldn't be praising these changes.

Currently the milligrams of potassium are listed on the next line below the milligrams of sodium. So it is easy to make a comparison. The way the Obama administration is changing it, the milligrams of potassium will no longer be listed at all.
 
Since my wife is diabetic I decided to pursue this a little and from what I've read the glycemic index is so widely variable, not only from person to person and food to food but even within a specific food type, that any value assigned would be not just a little but woefully inaccurate. After your rant against %DV it's seems a little - uh - ODD that you would even consider such a thing.
If what you say is the case, then you may have a point.
 
If sodium to potassium ratio is a concern of your's then you shouldn't be praising these changes.

Currently the milligrams of potassium are listed on the next line below the milligrams of sodium. So it is easy to make a comparison. The way the Obama administration is changing it, the milligrams of potassium will no longer be listed at all.

Did you even read the article?

From the above linked article:

'The food label revisions will also include mandatory potassium and vitamin D amounts.'

They do not do that on every label now.


All you do is bs (like in the last thread we 'chatted')...you are on my ignore list...I have no time for your nonsense.
 
We need a checkbox for "i tell myself I wouldn't be affected by something that seems so trivial, but the reality is that these kinds of things do affect some peoples' decisions even without their being aware of it."
 
Back
Top Bottom