Skip to comments.New food labels will have super-size calorie counts (Michelle supported FDA proposal)
Posted on 02/27/2014 2:53:16 PM PST by matt04
New 'Nutrition Facts' labels on packages will let families know whether their food has added sugars for the first time while reflecting more realistic portion sizes.
Calorie counts will also be in larger, bolder type under the label changes being proposed by the Food and Drug Administration, which were announced by Michelle Obama on Tuesday.
Under the changes, serving sizes would be based on what people actually eat, rather than what they should eat. A serving of ice cream, for example, would be half a pint, rather than a quarter of a pint.
Both 12-ounce and 20-ounce soda bottles will now read 'one serving' rather than two-and-a-half servings because people often drink the entire bottle in one sitting.
'Our guiding principle here is very simple, that you as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf and be able to tell whether it's good for your family,' said Mrs Obama, who announced the plans as part of her Let's Move initiative.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
I think the old labels are just fine if not better. Added sugar means?? Sugar is sugar.
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
They took the fat calories away. That was important because about 20% of our diet should come from fat.
Supersized like her @ss.
Hehe, thanks I needed that. :)
I can’t remember the last time I read a food label for a calorie count.
Those parents who ignore these warnings will be forced to don the SCARLET LETTERS...TF [ for Trans Fat] for a period of no less than 24 and no more that 48 hours in a stock in the public square.
I would consider this as a joke when one considers “Super-Size” to not refer to her ass. This is incredible that no one in the media, newswise or nite-comedian-wise has not brought this up in a joke or something.
It’s not like it’s an opinion . . . just look at her. If this were a Republican president’s wife they’d be all over her with constant joking.
Absolutely incredible that someone as large as she is is telling us that WE’RE too fat.
On the current label, a "serving" is defined by "some bureaucrat deciding what is the normal consumption amount."
If a person is too stupid to understand the labels as they are now, how is this going to help?
This is only the beginning.
I don’t doubt it one bit.
It’s gotten to the point that I have a sinking feeling whenever I log onto FR...I wonder what new outrage will be in the news.
My biggest fear it that there will be an attempt to keep this administration in power past 2016.
Well, with them in power, heaven knows how much easier it is now for terrorists to mount a successful attack (God forbid). And if that should happen, I could see Obama whipping out his pen for an “executive order” of a most unique kind.
A lot of people wouldn’t even care.
I have to clarify my statement about some bureaucrat deciding what is normal. Now I imagine some booboo looks at the container for the product and decides what the normal consumption amount is based on that container. For example most cans of soup are listed with two servings in the can. What is being proposed is some bureaucrat who has never seen a can of soup will decide that maybe 3 ounces is what a person would normally eat of that soup, which is not dependent upon the container. That will be a disaster. We all may eat 2 pounds of peanuts at a sitting but the booboo who is allergic to peanuts will say a normal eating size is one peanut. Also if a booboo in the east has to decide how much green chile should be in a serving they might say a smidgen while here in the southwest we normally eat a whole one with our breakfast eggs. The difference is now it is based on the container, the new one is based upon assumptions made by the booboo.
I understood what you were saying. My point is that what you are suggesting is a change is no different than what has gone on since the advent of the nutrition facts label. The “serving size” is not based on the container size - it is based on the “reference amount customarily consumed” (or “racc”). It’s always been based on assumptions made by the booboo, so to speak. This change just modifies those assumptions so that they more accurately reflect actual consumption.
Won’t this new criteria translate into even more higher food costs since manufacturers now have to revamp their labels? Food has already skyrocketed in price under this administration. All their feel good ideas come at a great cost to the American people. They never think through the ramifications of their ideas and policies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.