FDA redesigns nutrition panel

2456

Replies

  • MizTerry
    MizTerry Posts: 3,763 Member
    I like it. I totally approve.
  • Lleldiranne
    Lleldiranne Posts: 5,516 Member
    Any idea when this is supposed to start?

    I like it, especially the potassium info. Hooray for changes!

    From what I saw on CBS This Morning, they are announcing it now and have a 90 day comment period for people to weigh in on it (I don't know where we do that, probably something on an FDA website) before finalizing it.

    So for those of you who want protein at the top, let them know, maybe they'll listen. :laugh:



    I do like that they have added sugars listed. Maybe people will stop freaking out because they're over sugar after an apple and a banana.
  • Go_Mizzou99
    Go_Mizzou99 Posts: 2,628 Member
    I like it...

    se87tc.jpg
  • Linnaea27
    Linnaea27 Posts: 639 Member
    The new one looks better to me. What I think is dumb about it, though, it that sugar isn't displayed more boldly! I suspect this may have something to do with sugar/corn syrup corporate power. Anyway, hopefully this will help people who have trouble reading the small print of the current labels, or who are in a rush, see what they are eating a little better.
  • UsedToBeHusky
    UsedToBeHusky Posts: 15,228 Member
    Any idea when this is supposed to start?

    I like it, especially the potassium info. Hooray for changes!

    From what I saw on CBS This Morning, they are announcing it now and have a 90 day comment period for people to weigh in on it (I don't know where we do that, probably something on an FDA website) before finalizing it.

    So for those of you who want protein at the top, let them know, maybe they'll listen. :laugh:



    I do like that they have added sugars listed. Maybe people will stop freaking out because they're over sugar after an apple and a banana.

    I wonder if MFP will consider a redesign to the food diary now so that people can distinguish between added sugars and natural sugars.
  • wolverine66
    wolverine66 Posts: 3,779 Member
    Sad that we have to put the calorie count in 70 pt font because people can't be bothered to read it, but whatever works I guess! I'm sure I'll get used to the new one.

    I think you hit the nail on the head - this redesign is probably more for people who are not already used to looking for the information so may it catches their eye, and they pay attention instead of those of us who have trained ourselves to look for that info.

    I think it's a good change.

    And now I want some cereal. Anyone try that Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch?
  • SuperSexyDork
    SuperSexyDork Posts: 1,669 Member
    Sad that we have to put the calorie count in 70 pt font because people can't be bothered to read it, but whatever works I guess! I'm sure I'll get used to the new one.

    I think you hit the nail on the head - this redesign is probably more for people who are not already used to looking for the information so may it catches their eye, and they pay attention instead of those of us who have trained ourselves to look for that info.

    I think it's a good change.

    And now I want some cereal. Anyone try that Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch?

    I haven't tried it yet. However, I tried the chocolate ones. Would recommend, especially if you mix them with the multi-grain.
  • cwsreddy
    cwsreddy Posts: 998 Member
    Any idea when this is supposed to start?

    I like it, especially the potassium info. Hooray for changes!

    From what I saw on CBS This Morning, they are announcing it now and have a 90 day comment period for people to weigh in on it (I don't know where we do that, probably something on an FDA website) before finalizing it.

    So for those of you who want protein at the top, let them know, maybe they'll listen. :laugh:



    I do like that they have added sugars listed. Maybe people will stop freaking out because they're over sugar after an apple and a banana.

    I wonder if MFP will consider a redesign to the food diary now so that people can distinguish between added sugars and natural sugars.

    this would be excellent.
  • richardheath
    richardheath Posts: 1,276 Member
    I'd have put the %DV column on the right, where it belongs, but other than that, it looks OK.

    It also seems they have increased the amount of Dietary fiber we are supposed to eat. On the left, 4g is 16%; on the right, the same 4g is 14%.

    And is there no DV for protein?
  • silvergurl518
    silvergurl518 Posts: 4,123 Member
    i *do* like how big the number for calories is. kind of like a slap in the face ;) but i agree, potassium content is good. i'm not supposed to have a ton, for whatever reason. so this is good.
  • SuperSexyDork
    SuperSexyDork Posts: 1,669 Member
    I don't like the alignment on the redesign, however making calories and serving size more prominent are great for the emphasis. Also, I don't think they should be removing vitamins A & C but adding potassium and vitamin D is definitely needed.
  • Amestris
    Amestris Posts: 152 Member
    I tried to find the docket number for public comment on the FDA site with little luck. It should be posted on regulations.gov for public comment. It's just difficult to find things there without the docket number.
  • JoanneC1216
    JoanneC1216 Posts: 166
    It looks like calories is the only thing enlarged. I will still have to pull out my glasses :-/
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    I like it. Especially making the number of servings more prominent.
  • subsonicbassist
    subsonicbassist Posts: 117 Member
    The font is a little comical, but it can be very effective for the droves of people who get lost in reading the label because it is all the same size and color (yes, this is actually a thing). I heard a rumor that they are planning on removing the "grams per serving" requirement in favor of the volume measurement because "people do not understand what the correct serving size is, and it's easier to tell by volume than by gram"... ehh, taking away the most accurate form of measurement in favor of "eyeballing it" in a country with an obesity problem?!?!?! Silly FDA...
  • stumblinthrulife
    stumblinthrulife Posts: 2,558 Member
    I like it, and I think it's an improvement for diet-trackers like us. But in isolation I think it will make precisely not one jot of difference for the non-calorie-counter. The majority of people do not measure their food, and simply have no real interest in measuring their food.

    I think that marginally more useful would be a small graphic showing a portion size relative to a common recognizable reference point like a golf ball or a tennis ball or deck of cards. An eyeball-guide would be more useful than volume or weight because it translates directly to what you see on the plate, rather than via the intermediary step of scales or measuring cups.

    I've spent ten years in a job getting sales people to focus on important long term company health rather than short term personal gain. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that in the absence of direct behavioral control, you must have as few barriers to understanding as possible.
  • Ladydrake12
    Ladydrake12 Posts: 45 Member
    I like it! Hate the location of the DV but I like the serving size changes. Although I am trained to look and read the nutrition label, I am lazy so anything that makes it quicker to read and find how much I can eat of it makes me happy. haha.
  • maab_connor
    maab_connor Posts: 3,927 Member
    Pros: Tries to make it more obvious that the information is for A SERVING and not the whole damned container. Includes Vitamin D and potassium. Finally stops bothering people with the "Calories from fat" nonsense.

    Cons: The percentages on the left make me twitchy. Protein is not at the top where it belongs.

    Agreed.

    Calories at the very top

    Protein to follow

    Fat to follow

    I would say:

    Calories
    Sodium
    Protein
    Fat

    b/c I know most ppl have to be careful w/ sodium.
  • navyrigger46
    navyrigger46 Posts: 1,301 Member
    They're also increasing serving sizes on the labels too.

    Rigger
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Great changes. Much more readable and calorie content as well as servings per container are now featured much more prominently. Still doesn't include potassium, sadly.


    New style is on the right? It shows potassium...

    Oh look at that, it does. Huh.

    "Lastly, the labels would make Vitamin D and Potassium counts mandatory, while Vitamins A and C would be optional."

    YAY!!

    I heard this news this morning and I AM THRILLED!!! :bigsmile:
  • SapiensPisces
    SapiensPisces Posts: 992 Member
    I'm very happy to see potassium being listed finally! Great news.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    hopefully MFP can make Vitamin D a trackable micro now, too!
    BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!

    That's even funnier than the gifs!
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    I still wish they'd gone with a second column of info per 100g as other countries do. Then I could pick up two boxes of cereal (for example) and directly compare with having to recalculate everything based on the different serving sizes.

    ETA: I never noticed on the old one, but there's no % daily allowance for protein. Isn't there a RDA for protein (even if some people say it's too low)?
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    The new one looks better to me. What I think is dumb about it, though, it that sugar isn't displayed more boldly! I suspect this may have something to do with sugar/corn syrup corporate power.
    Not even close. The "added sugar" line item is 100% useless yet it is still there so that people like you can continue to demonize sugar.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    The new one looks better to me. What I think is dumb about it, though, it that sugar isn't displayed more boldly! I suspect this may have something to do with sugar/corn syrup corporate power.
    Not even close. The "added sugar" line item is 100% useless yet it is still there so that people like you can continue to demonize sugar.

    Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about that one. I think limiting foods with added sugar is a valid way to keep calorie intake down, but I don't think the line is necessary. The downside of it is that it gives more fuel to the "sugar is a toxin" people.
  • levitateme
    levitateme Posts: 999 Member
    I think they should dumb it down one step further for completely uninformed people and have a "calories per container" line right near the "8 servings per container".

    I know plenty of people who will be all "Oh, it's only 130 calories!" and eat directly from the box/bag of something without knowing how many 130 calories servings they've eaten.
  • jonnythan
    jonnythan Posts: 10,161 Member
    I think they should dumb it down one step further for completely uninformed people and have a "calories per container" line right near the "8 servings per container".

    I know plenty of people who will be all "Oh, it's only 130 calories!" and eat directly from the box/bag of something without knowing how many 130 calories servings they've eaten.

    I like that idea.
  • mustgetmuscles1
    mustgetmuscles1 Posts: 3,346 Member
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2012-N-1210
    http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FDA-2004-N-0258
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Great changes. Much more readable and calorie content as well as servings per container are now featured much more prominently. Still doesn't include potassium, sadly.

    fda_labels_500.png

    New style is on the right? It shows potassium...

    Oh look at that, it does. Huh.

    "Lastly, the labels would make Vitamin D and Potassium counts mandatory, while Vitamins A and C would be optional."

    YAY!!

    I like that they are including Vit D and Potassium, but I dislike making Vit A and C optional.
  • Polarpaly05
    Polarpaly05 Posts: 74 Member
    "The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler."

    source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/health/nutrition-labels-changes/

    YESSS

    Agree... and they need to make girl scout cookie servings "1 tube". Who eats 4 cookies?
    but I dislike making Vit A and C optional

    Do you normally have problems hitting A & C? I always find I'm absurdly over the %DV.

Categories