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.It may help those who are looking to make better choices
What would your version of the ideal nutrition label look like?The problem is that the labels have so much government mandated disinformation on them.
Of course it is meaningful, especially if someone is trying to keep track of their calories. Explain why you think it would be meaningless?
The problem is that the labels have so much government mandated disinformation on them.
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.What would your version of the ideal nutrition label look like?
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 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.
That's not going to happen, ever. Food companies are not going to give up their corporate secrets.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.
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."
Yes. That needs to be changed. See the above post for just one example.There's a law that food labels have to lie? Really?
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.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.
If sodium to potassium ratio is a concern of your's then you shouldn't be praising these changes.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 what you say is the case, then you may have a point.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 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?