Activity-equivalent calorie labelling

RoxieDawn

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

RoxieDawn wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

I think it would end up being just another way to market junk food and will do nothing to help people manage their weight.

I'd much rather they require the calories be given for a 100g (regardless of the typical serving size) and for the entire package and do away with serving sizes altogether -- that's much more useful for those counting calories, IMO. And as a bonus the information can't be manipulated.

But the idea is not to reach out to those already counting calories... I would not be their target audience..

I think this proposal would be just as ineffective as the current labeling laws that do nothing to curb obesity or improve the quality of peoples diets. In my opinion, their only use is for those already heath conscious which is why I think providing clear information that can't be manipulated is the only change I can see being of any use to the consumer.

Unless it's removing all marketing from the packaging like some countries do with cigarettes -- that would reduce calories consumed I imagine.

I do agree the labels are already helping those that help themselves.

I still would not be the target audience that they wish to reach out to, and in the end this may be all about the almighty dollar to everyone that has their hand in this.. So who cares who they reach? is what I ask my self..

Can't do away with the labels all together this would hurt my calorie counting abilities..

lemurcat12

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

AlabasterVerve wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

I don't think "the labels are only helping people who are being helped by the labels" is a very good argument against making information available to people who could benefit from having it.

I must have missed it, but I haven't noticed anyone arguing against making information available.

I am against providing people with information that is not accurate or confusing, which is one of the issues when deciding what labeling to provide -- there are so many things that could be disclosed that it could end up making the disclosures unhelpful, so choices need to be made, including how to display the information.

For example, a lot of people seem to think that a package of two largish cookies is labeled 2 servings (this is hypothetical) because the manufacturer is trying to be tricky. The truth is that the US gov't requires it, because the gov't's current position is that is better to educate people on what an appropriate serving size is than to help normalize overly large serving sizes, even if many people are likely eating the whole package and may misread the label (although I personally have very little patience with the argument that the current labels are too hard to understand -- serving size 2 isn't that complicated, although 3.5 as on some canned tomatoes is kind of annoying). On this particular question I can see both sides and think both are reasonable positions (I'm inclined to the gov't POV, but wouldn't care much if the policy changed).

Anyway, I don't like the exercise on the label idea -- I think there are better ways the labeling could be changed -- but it wouldn't upset me or anything if it were added.

That's not the "truth" or at least not the whole truth. The labeling requirements are a convoluted mess with a lot of wiggle room for the manufacturer to skew the label in their best interests. For example, a can of cooking spray can be labeled as having six hundred servings per can and zero calories - which is of course absurd and not required by law but a loophole they're happy to exploit.

FDA Labeling & Nutrition

Most of the things people complain about like the cookies ARE because of the gov't-defined serving sizes. But the broader point is that I don't think it's really a good idea to call a 20 oz soda a serving (which manufacturers could do, under current law, but choose not to), because it's messed up that we think that's a serving. I'd rather tell people it's 2 or 2.5 servings and let them make the decision to consume twice or more of a serving size. I don't think the math is that tough or the label that confusing (and if it is the issue is inadequate education, period).

But like I said, I can see your side too, even if I disagree, and I think it's a reasonable position.

I don't believe that to be true.

If the single unit weighs 200% or more of the RACC, there are two options. The serving size can either be declared as one unit if the entire unit can reasonably be eaten on one occasion or can be declared as a portion of the unit. For example, the RACC for candy bars is 40 g, and 200% of the RACC is 80 g. For a 90 g candy bar, the serving size could be either “1 candy bar (90 g)” or “½ candy bar (45 g).” FDA also provides additional specific provisions for (1) products (such as pickles) that naturally vary in size 21 CFR 101.9(b)(8)(ii); (2) products made up of two or more foods, ackaged and intended to be consumed together 21 CFR 101.9(b)(5)(vii); and (3) products containing several, fully labeled, single serving units. 21 FR 101.9(b)(5)(iv)

Here it is: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.9

How I'm reading it is for something like a giant muffin can = 1, even if way above the normal serving size (which is what I typically see, but I don't look at packaged muffins much, admittedly). However, the manufacturer has freedom to choose (I had thought for these it had to be labeled as 1, so I was wrong about that). But if you have 2 cookies packaged together the cookies should be labeled separately. If you have something like a loaf of bread, a pie, a frozen pizza, it will be based on the defined size. Package of rice and beans, same. Cottage cheese, same.

There was some complaint here a while back and I looked up the relevant regs, and for that one it was required by fed law, but I forget the specifics.

RoxieDawn

The packaging is screwy and will mess with the person who does not know there is more than one serving in the package...

For example, I used to be the one that bought a 6 pack of peanut butter crackers (Lance or Frito Lay for example) out of the vending machine and thought it was 1 serving. Come to find out years later, the serving size is 4 crackers. So why package 6 crackers instead of 4? What in the heck am I going to do with 2 crackers left over? LOL

chocolate_owl

I think you'd see the same thing you see with restaurants posting calories - people will still eat what they want to eat, and calorie/activity information won't change that. An person who isn't watching what they eat will dismiss the activity because they don't care. A person trying to lose weight on a diet plan will be opting for foods that fit their plan, which with the paleo/clean eating trends are primarily foods not in packages. And a person losing weight by tracking calories will look at the calorie profile. I see the biggest impact on the group that needs it the least: people with or on the path to eating disorders. Instead of viewing food as neutral or as fuel, the activity label will be perceived as a warning: "If you eat this, you have to run for 20 minutes." It will incite a lot of guilt and unhealthy behavior instead of promoting healthy choices.

French_Peasant

RoxieDawn wrote: »

The packaging is screwy and will mess with the person who does not know there is more than one serving in the package...

For example, I used to be the one that bought a 6 pack of peanut butter crackers (Lance or Frito Lay for example) out of the vending machine and thought it was 1 serving. Come to find out years later, the serving size is 4 crackers. So why package 6 crackers instead of 4? What in the heck am I going to do with 2 crackers left over? LOL

Or the bag of Turtle Chex Mix that looks like a good serving, but come to find out a serving is 1/2 cup and there are 4.5 or so servings in the bag? I am sorry, 1/2 cup of Chex Mix is NOT a serving. Nor are 3 oreos. Calories make me angry sometimes. *shakes fist*

zcb94

I think it'd be an eye opener for most consumers, but do agree with those who have pointed out that the burn may vary depending (basically) on who you are, and that not all daily activities are represented (for example, cleaning is an overlooked exercise that makes a big dent in my calorie intake, but may not matter to tall and thin Joe Smoe if his house is easier to maintain). YMMV, for sure.

tomteboda

Calories consumed are virtually uniform for all people. Calories burned are not. I think it's a terrible idea. Maybe do major public awareness campaigns about calories and exercise but labeling the food that way strikes me as terrible.

moe0303

tomteboda wrote: »

Calories consumed are virtually uniform for all people. Calories burned are not. I think it's a terrible idea. Maybe do major public awareness campaigns about calories and exercise but labeling the food that way strikes me as terrible.

Do you mean calories required? I'm pretty sure that the consumption will vary as much as the differences in body fat.

I go back and forth. I said earlier that they should base the numbers off of obese individuals, but if they kept it at a 170 pound, they would actually over estimate a little bit. So while it may not be accurate, the worst that could happen is that they are encouraged to burn a little bit more than they need.

lemurcat12

170 lbs would make people of my size think they could burn things off far more easily than the reality. Heck, the usual rough estimate of running cals is based on 150 lbs, and I consistently have to remind myself it's less for me.

moe0303

lemurcat12 wrote: »

170 lbs would make people of my size think they could burn things off far more easily than the reality. Heck, the usual rough estimate of running cals is based on 150 lbs, and I consistently have to remind myself it's less for me.

Yeah, but how long would it be until people of your size realized that the numbers are a little less for them? Or, how long until they decide to just ignore the icon? The percentages are currently based off of a 2000 calorie diet, which I suspect would also be off for smaller (or larger) people.

yarwell

RoxieDawn wrote: »

I am curious of everyone's thoughts on this and debate the pro's and con's of doing such labeling in the UK

If they add anything else to the packaging I won't be able to read any of it.

Apparently 50% of survey respondent's find current labels "confusing" but I haven't seen research to say whether adding a 3rd layer of advice - nutrition label, traffic lights, exercise equivalent - would help these people or whether they are just a bit challenged in this area.

It might nudge someone the right way, if they find "x minutes of walking" easier to relate to than "y calories" when making a choice.

CipherZero

I would love to see "entire package" as a serving size in parallel with a sane "per serving" size.

andylllI

I think the idea is a bad one. It's quite ableist. Not everyone can exercise. I think it excludes groups that can't because of physical limitations or health problems or who don't have a safe space to exercise and I think it's another example of shame based anti obesity "education."

yarwell

CipherZero wrote: »

I would love to see "entire package" as a serving size in parallel with a sane "per serving" size.

really ?

UK labels major in the per 100 grams nutritional data, per serving is less common and optional. EU rules :-

"Per portion nutrition information on “back of pack”

You may give nutrition information per portion (e.g. half a pizza) and/or per
consumption unit (a single unit of food you might take from a packet, e.g. one biscuit
or one chicken nugget), as long as this information is given in addition to the
mandatory per 100g or per 100ml information.

When you provide nutrition information per portion and/or per consumption unit as
set out above, this information must be easily understandable by the consumer (e.g.
“one burger”), and you must quantify the portion or consumption unit used on the
label in close proximity to the nutrition declaration.

You must also state the number of portions and/or consumption units contained in the
package. EU FIC does not specify where this information should be placed on the
packaging."

kommodevaran

Bad idea. Calories are burnt continously, and exercise burn is individual.

I know people get eating disorders all the time, but this has potential to trigger lots of ED.

As if insane "serving sizes", traffic lights and %DV wasn't enough.

Coca Cola used the same argument, just from a little differerent perspective, just a few months ago and nobody liked it then.

playmadcats

For me consistent labelling would be the key, rather than how it's done. In confectionery machine at work we have three items next to each other that use the traffic light system you can just make out the calories fat and salt numbers.etc.
What you can't make out is the per quantity written above these numbers. One is per 100g one is per pack, the other per serving (packet contains two servings). In each case people usually consume the whole item. most people don't realise.and several of workmates are picking stuff due to the calories not realising the packet is double or treble.
On the activity scale can see the same arising. May work to a point as a rough guide, but only if everything's measured in the same way.

Timshel_

When I was training people years back I would always break down meals to exercise. Numbers have less impact than a relaetable effort.

Debbie_Ferr

It IS a creative, out-side-the-box kind of thinking. kudos for that. but it's too general. and how does a 125 lb person vs a 200 lb person translate that label info into their specific situation ?

The problem is the average person doesn't even know how much exercise they need to do to burn off 100 calories, or how many calories they burn walking for 20 minutes, or cycling for 20 minutes !! they are totally and utterly clueless.
I feel this is where education has failed. This is where there's a disconnect.

Better yet, why not distribute widespread charts (obviously not on the food item- since it would never ever fit ) Available at stores, restaurants, online, etc

It's quite simple:

1- Look at your candy bar wrapper label
ie how many calories.

2 - look at your chart
a chart that has body weight vs. exercise for 20 minutes.
Find your body weight in the left hand column
Find your exercise preference across the 1st row. (ie walk @ 3mph. run @ 5 mph. cycle @ 10 mph. swim @ 2 mph)
See where they intersect, for the APPROX calories burned in 20 minutes !

3- make your decisionS
Calories in ~ Are you eating the candy bar? How many calories is it.
Calories out ~ How many minutes will you exercise? and what's your approx calorie burn?

after awhile, you won't have to look at the chart. you'll have your info memorized.
(which of course is a rough estimate anyways)
as an example, for me, 120 lbs, I burn approx 60 calories walking 20 minutes (3mph)
I make many a decision based on that rough estimate !!