FDA Asks Public: What Is 'Healthy Food'?

Anvil_Head

NorthCascades wrote: »

The_Enginerd wrote: »

Individual foods aren't healthy or unhealthy, diets are.

I think whale, dolphin, and some fish are unhealthy foods, because they've caused mercury poisoning. Wouldn't you agree that poison isn't a macronutrient?

You're conveniently ignoring context and dosage.

4legsRbetterthan2

Do many people need help determining what foods are healthy?

yes

Individual foods aren't healthy or unhealthy, diets are

agreed

There is a failed mindset in America (and probably most other countries) around food. It is either healthy, or not; as if our entire diet is made up of that one food instead of putting it in the context of it's mixture with other food. I imagine this will result in the labeling of fruits, veggies, and raw meats as healthy; which lets face it, I think most people agree on this regardless of what *diet* they believe in. The consumer still needs to be smart enough to realize they need to mix them together for good results. What will labeling these things as healthy actually get us, besides higher taxes or grocery bills to pay for the labeling.

I did like it when a couple years back they started putting the basic calorie/macro counts on the front of packages, I found that to be convenient when shopping, saved me the 2 seconds of pulling something off the shelf, flipping it over, and then putting it back if I decided against it.

I could maybe see some benefit in giving tips with food, I wouldn't put these on the actual bag/box but maybe on the shelf display. An example: rice - "rice is a good carbohydrate source, mix with vegetable and meat for a balanced meal" or something like that. There is still obviously a limited amount of information in that, but it at least points them away from thinking "healthy" rice alone is a great diet. (or maybe rice doesn't fall into the "healthy" category at all to the general public who has been lead to believe carbs are evil, who the heck knows)

Sloth2016

In the context of printed on a food package, I view the word "healthy" the same as I would the word "tasty" or "snackable" - simply an artifice created by a paid marketeer. To the extent the gov'mint wants to regulate the use of the word, absent some other definition that it creates, applies and enforces (e.g., "USDA Inspected"), I would not give much credence or credibility to the word appearing on a package.

T1DCarnivoreRunner

As others have said, there really is no universal and objective definition of "healthy." Unless this whole plan is to be abandoned (obviously not since they are asking for public input), they should change it to a rating. Some group of experts should come up with a complicated formula to determine a level of "healthy." No food can ever reach 100% except pure filtered water... 80% or above would look really good, though.

Or they should just abandon the idea.

CSARdiver

BOHICA - get familiar with this acronym anytime you see an open panel of this nature form a government agency.

FDA is taking public comments to get consensus on whether or not a large regulatory push will be successful. They want more control and testing the waters to see if the public with play along.

Yet another government manufactured problem with no solution in sight, but will make for great justification for budget increase.

Allow greater authority at your peril.

Ruatine

Like many others, I don't see this having an impact on the way people buy food. At all. Also like others, I don't see how you can label a food as "healthy" without knowing the overall diet of a person.

The big question is, has or will anyone here comment(ed) on the proposed rule?

robininfl

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

ouryve

robininfl wrote: »

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

In the UK, many of those foods carry the label "best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet"

RodaRose

ouryve wrote: »

robininfl wrote: »

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

In the UK, many of those foods carry the label "best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet"

Authorities in the U.K. probably have it closer to right than anything policy makers in the U.S. will produce.

lemurcat12

RodaRose wrote: »

ouryve wrote: »

robininfl wrote: »

Personally (and maybe this is leftover from ED, but...) I tend to think of ranking foods as nutritious defined largely by nutrition (vitamins and minerals) per calorie, so collards and kale greens at the top, other vegetables, but since obviously you can't eat only collards and kale, and you need fat, protein, carbohydrates, things that are not good in excess but are not just healthy but necessary in moderation.

So there's not much use trying to define one food in isolation, as healthy. It isn't healthy if it's the only thing you eat. You have to put the whole diet in perspective, and look at everything together.

I do think of some foods as unhealthy, full stop. Candy like skittles, stuff made of sugar only, and the candy bars like snickers and milky way, and also full sugar (and Particularly HFCS) sodas. Because they have pretty much no nutrition and lots of calories.

In the UK, many of those foods carry the label "best enjoyed as part of a balanced diet"

Authorities in the U.K. probably have it closer to right than anything policy makers in the U.S. will produce.

We were talking about the stoplight system in another thread, and actually the current UK labeling rules seem to be pretty similar to the current US rules that are being reconsidered. Knee-jerk anti fat.

shellyld2016

I really think instead of trying to define healthy for us why not demand transparency on the ingredients! Make it known if there are hormones injected, colorings, chemically altered substances, gmo or non. Also for me I want to know where it has been. Was it processed, grown, and inspected here, or shipped out to be handled by a country with fewer regulations on both handling and use of chemicals banned here and brought back in and fed to us? All of that should be on the label! If people then want to buy it fine, but we should be able to make informed decisions.

karl317

This is one of the most ridiculous questions ever posed. EVERY POSSIBLE MEANING for the word "Healthy" is 100% open to interpretation, and is completely *MEANINGLESS* when the term "healthy" lacks any and all context.

For instance, if you are diabetic, and the ADA/FDA/NIH says it's "healthy" to eat 50+% of your calories from carbohydrates, which you KNOW will spike your insulin, is that "healthy?" I don't think so. But gee, the FDA allowed this company to put the word "healthy" on the label! It must be true!

Don't fall for this, folks. It's a sucker play. If the FDA defines the term "Healthy" - even to the general public's liking - it will mean people will justify eating 17 servings of it in a single sitting because it's the "healthy" thing to do.

When a person walks into a crowded room and says "The average person is an idiot", no one ever gets offended because everyone truly believes they are of above average intelligence. The FDA should take that into account before they ask for public input.