FDA redesigns nutrition panel
Replies
-
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...0 -
"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?
I only eat 3-4 at once. I would have to have some serious munchies to eat a whole tube, and then I would feel sick, I think. Back in the day I could have, but not anymore.0 -
Larger calorie font is great. Makes it easy to decide whether or not I'd consider buying something.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
What's wrong with the alignment?
IT'S ALL JUST LEFT.
^^ SO Agree!!!0 -
"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.
Vitamin C, not usually. Vitamin A, yes.0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??0 -
The only complaint I have is... I would really like to see them put the caloric count for the whole package if there is more than one serving in it... granted I myself, may enter it into MFP and know... but it's not that hard to put back a box of mac and cheese all by one's self... even I can do that if I'm hungry enough.... or what about a can of pringles... it's not hard to knock one of those back either... and they have more than one serving in it.0
-
And now I want some cereal. Anyone try that Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch?
Not yet! Report back if you try it!0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?0 -
And now I want some cereal. Anyone try that Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch?
Not yet! Report back if you try it!
I have that now, actually. It's good :bigsmile:0 -
They're also increasing serving sizes on the labels too.
Rigger
^^ This is a good thing. Most people can't multiply 3 digit numbers in their head, and they ain't stoppin' 'til it's empty!0 -
I love the new requirement for potassium, will have to update several of my nutritional info's for things as that gets added in.
The format kills me, I don't mind the percentages being on the left, but the column header clearly says %'s, they didn't need to add a percentage after every number as well.0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?
The fda designed it. Food companies redesign packages constantly. This is more than negligible in terms of cost, and it gives more info.0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?
The fda designed it. Food companies redesign packages constantly. This is more than negligible in terms of cost, and it gives more info.
According to the CNN article they would have two years to implement the change once it is adopted. I cant imagine that changing the label would have any cost at the next package redesign.
"With this announcement, the FDA has opened a 90-day comment period, during which experts and members of the public can provide input on the proposed rules. The FDA will then issue a final rule. Officials said they hope to complete the process this year.
Manufacturing companies will then have two years to implement the changes."0 -
Well I hate the new design. I used to rely on calories from fat, and now there is no possible way to determine that. Because math is hard, and I just don't bother with the advanced stuff like multiplications and percentages and stuff.
Edited to Jonnythan's well-taken point0 -
Just kidding; misread post.Well I hate the new design. I used to rely on %calories from fat, and now there is no possible way to determine that. Because math is hard, and I just don't bother with the advanced stuff like multiplications and percentages and stuff.
I made fun of your ability at life for percentages, but I suck worse because reading. :sad:0 -
It didn't give % calories from fat before anyway.0
-
Just kidding; misread post.Well I hate the new design. I used to rely on %calories from fat, and now there is no possible way to determine that. Because math is hard, and I just don't bother with the advanced stuff like multiplications and percentages and stuff.
I made fun of your ability at life for percentages, but I suck worse because reading. :sad:
Well I wholly endorse the original intent behind your initial post! :bigsmile:
ETA: and doubly endorse your profile pic!0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?
The fda designed it. Food companies redesign packages constantly. This is more than negligible in terms of cost, and it gives more info.
I can tell you don't work in manufacturing. :laugh:0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?
The fda designed it. Food companies redesign packages constantly. This is more than negligible in terms of cost, and it gives more info.
According to the CNN article they would have two years to implement the change once it is adopted. I cant imagine that changing the label would have any cost at the next package redesign.
"With this announcement, the FDA has opened a 90-day comment period, during which experts and members of the public can provide input on the proposed rules. The FDA will then issue a final rule. Officials said they hope to complete the process this year.
Manufacturing companies will then have two years to implement the changes."
Two years seems a fair amount of time. But yes, any design change is going to have a cost associated with it. Someone gets paid, and probably at $25+/hr (if they are CAD) to redesign it. Depending on the manufacturer, the cost could be small or it could be large. I know a water bottling company that nearly went out of business (had to restructure costs, etc.) when the labeling thing first came in. (And why should water need to say anything except, "WATER"? :laugh:) Any cost increase could potentially increase price because of the volatility in the current food market, which is crazy right now.0 -
I'm happy they took out the "calories from fat" that was useless information!
I'd love to know where the original came up with 40 calories from fat in the first place. Last time I checked a gram of fat counted as 9 calories. Simple math. 9 x 8= 72, not 40! WTH0 -
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?
The fda designed it. Food companies redesign packages constantly. This is more than negligible in terms of cost, and it gives more info.
I can tell you don't work in manufacturing. :laugh:
Do you work at all?0 -
Why are the Daily value percentages so important that they are on the left hand side, or on there at all? Who is actually on a 2000 calorie diet?0
-
Disagree. It will take me a while to get used to it. :ohwell:
ETA: not to mention increasing food costs even more...
Costs??
Right. They will have to redesign labels. You think the money fairy is paying for it?
The fda designed it. Food companies redesign packages constantly. This is more than negligible in terms of cost, and it gives more info.
I can tell you don't work in manufacturing. :laugh:
Do you work at all?
I try to work smart, not hard. :laugh:
My field is accounting, but I also majored in business management. I'm currently in the income tax industry, as a business performance specialist, but my previous employment was in manufacturing.0 -
So... no?0
-
So... no?
You aren't sure if you have manufacturing experience or not? :laugh:0 -
Why are the Daily value percentages so important that they are on the left hand side, or on there at all? Who is actually on a 2000 calorie diet?
Me! Most of the time anyway.0 -
My maintenance is about 2300-2400 calories, and I lose at 1950-2000. Just changed my goal because apparently I've been blowing past my goal repeatedly, so it's now 1800. It's a bad assumption that everyone will eat the same amount. People have different weights and activity levels. But 2000 is a pretty good number for the general population.Why are the Daily value percentages so important that they are on the left hand side, or on there at all? Who is actually on a 2000 calorie diet?0 -
Although it doesn't look a little "elementary school" with the alignment and what not, I approve. Especially a fan of the mandatory potassium figure!Great changes. Much more readable and calorie content as well as servings per container are now featured much more prominently.
EDIT: Potassium content is now mandatory!! This is probably more significant than the panel redesign.
0 -
I have to be honest and say that I think making serving sizes of foods bigger is really awful news for people like me who already read labels and eat actual serving sizes. Instead of teaching people to measure what they eat and eat moderate portions, this will just justify the larger portions many people already eat and make it harder for the rest of us to track the calories of smaller portions, since now we'll be the ones having to do unnecessary math to count the calories for smaller/more moderate portions of food.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions