FDA redesigns nutrition panel

Options
1356789

Replies

  • SuperSexyDork
    SuperSexyDork Posts: 1,669 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    It looks like calories is the only thing enlarged. I will still have to pull out my glasses :-/
  • ILiftHeavyAcrylics
    ILiftHeavyAcrylics Posts: 27,732 Member
    Options
    I like it. Especially making the number of servings more prominent.
  • subsonicbassist
    subsonicbassist Posts: 117 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    They're also increasing serving sizes on the labels too.

    Rigger
  • DamePiglet
    DamePiglet Posts: 3,730 Member
    Options
    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: 1,001 Member
    Options
    I'm very happy to see potassium being listed finally! Great news.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    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
    Options
    "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