Skip to comments.
New food labels will have super-size calorie counts (Michelle supported FDA proposal)
Daily Mail UK ^
Posted on 02/27/2014 2:53:16 PM PST by matt04
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
Mooch getting involved in areas the FLOTUS has no position to be in. I'm sure they have having some vegan, low fat, etc. dinner tonight, right?
1
posted on
02/27/2014 2:53:16 PM PST
by
matt04
To: matt04
I think the old labels are just fine if not better. Added sugar means?? Sugar is sugar.
To: All
3
posted on
02/27/2014 2:55:27 PM PST
by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: matt04
They took the fat calories away. That was important because about 20% of our diet should come from fat.
To: matt04
5
posted on
02/27/2014 3:01:17 PM PST
by
RushIsMyTeddyBear
(Great vid by ShorelineMike! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZjJk6nbD4&feature=plcp)
To: RushIsMyTeddyBear
Hehe, thanks I needed that. :)
6
posted on
02/27/2014 3:07:21 PM PST
by
andyk
(I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
To: matt04
I can’t remember the last time I read a food label for a calorie count.
7
posted on
02/27/2014 3:07:43 PM PST
by
cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
To: matt04
As a diabetic I do agree with most of these proposals. However my big question about the whole thing is HOW DO THEY KNOW WHAT A PERSON WILL NORMALLY CONSUME OF THE PRODUCT. Remember the old advertisement, “You cannot eat just one”? So how will they know? I think they should stick to the actual quantity in a “serving” rather than some bureaucrat deciding what is the normal consumption amount.
8
posted on
02/27/2014 3:11:21 PM PST
by
ProudFossil
(" I never did give anyone hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Harry Truman)
To: matt04
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.
9
posted on
02/27/2014 3:13:47 PM PST
by
MeshugeMikey
(how many times has obie fundamentaly transformed obamacare now?)
To: matt04
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.
A lot of canned goods have similar 'two-and-a-half servings' recommendations. Similarly, one person could easily comsume the entire contents in one sitting -- and still have room for dessert.
Those measures are like Michelle's school lunches that leave students hungry.
10
posted on
02/27/2014 3:18:39 PM PST
by
TomGuy
To: matt04
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.
11
posted on
02/27/2014 3:21:01 PM PST
by
laweeks
To: ProudFossil
I think they should stick to the actual quantity in a serving rather than some bureaucrat deciding what is the normal consumption amount. On the current label, a "serving" is defined by "some bureaucrat deciding what is the normal consumption amount."
To: matt04
If a person is too stupid to understand the labels as they are now, how is this going to help?
13
posted on
02/27/2014 4:40:10 PM PST
by
CatherineofAragon
((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.))
To: CatherineofAragon
This is only the beginning.
14
posted on
02/27/2014 4:43:30 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: trisham
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.
15
posted on
02/27/2014 4:51:12 PM PST
by
CatherineofAragon
((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.))
To: CatherineofAragon
My biggest fear it that there will be an attempt to keep this administration in power past 2016.
16
posted on
02/27/2014 4:53:35 PM PST
by
trisham
(Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
To: trisham
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.
17
posted on
02/27/2014 5:07:45 PM PST
by
CatherineofAragon
((Support Christian white males----the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization.))
To: Conscience of a Conservative
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.
18
posted on
02/27/2014 6:08:32 PM PST
by
ProudFossil
(" I never did give anyone hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell." Harry Truman)
To: ProudFossil
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.
To: matt04
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...like no one's smart enough to translate what's on the labels now over to what they're actually consuming without making the producers spend millions on printing new-format labels - lots of changes with no effective difference - but it does let another Obama try to show how she's doing something.....
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-22 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson