FDA redesigns nutrition panel

kikkipoo

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! WTH

jonnythan

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?

MelRC117

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?

WendyTerry420

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.

jonnythan

So... no?

WendyTerry420

So... no?

You aren't sure if you have manufacturing experience or not? :laugh:

Achrya

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.

auddii

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?

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.

coolraul07

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.

piejin

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.

PikaKnight

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.

What? Did I miss something? I'm going by the talk of labels so not sure where that came from. 2/3 cup is still 2/3 cup on both labels. Not sure what is becoming "bigger" except the label part where the servings and calories are stated.

piejin

What? Did I miss something? I'm going by the talk of labels so not sure where that came from. 2/3 cup is still 2/3 cup on both labels. Not sure what is becoming "bigger" except the label part where the servings and calories are stated.

You did miss something! From an LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nutrition-labels-20140227,0,1274002.story#axzz2uYUZy8tZ):

"The FDA proposal would also revise serving sizes to reflect the most recent data on consumer habits. The serving size for soda is currently 8 ounces, but consumers often drink soda in 12-ounce cans or even larger bottles.
The current rules allow manufacturers to use a larger serving size, as some soda makers do, but the proposed rule would require the serving size to be at least 12 ounces.
With the update, the serving sizes set in 1994 would increase for some products, such as ice cream, while sizes for other products, such as yogurt, would decrease.
"The serving sizes for many foods are a joke now — the half-cup of ice cream, 2-ounce muffins and bagels, which haven't been seen in decades," said Jacobson, praising proposed revisions."

PikaKnight

What? Did I miss something? I'm going by the talk of labels so not sure where that came from. 2/3 cup is still 2/3 cup on both labels. Not sure what is becoming "bigger" except the label part where the servings and calories are stated.

You did miss something! From an LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nutrition-labels-20140227,0,1274002.story#axzz2uYUZy8tZ):

"The FDA proposal would also revise serving sizes to reflect the most recent data on consumer habits. The serving size for soda is currently 8 ounces, but consumers often drink soda in 12-ounce cans or even larger bottles.
The current rules allow manufacturers to use a larger serving size, as some soda makers do, but the proposed rule would require the serving size to be at least 12 ounces.
With the update, the serving sizes set in 1994 would increase for some products, such as ice cream, while sizes for other products, such as yogurt, would decrease.
"The serving sizes for many foods are a joke now — the half-cup of ice cream, 2-ounce muffins and bagels, which haven't been seen in decades," said Jacobson, praising proposed revisions."

Hmmm. I don't really see the issue. But I tend to weigh my food which allows me to enter per gram/ounce.

I guess it'd be a pain if you were still going by measuring cups. But I think that you can easily enter fractions (versus decimals) of the servings...so again, I don't think it'll really be an issue or that much of a pain.

piejin

Hmmm. I don't really see the issue. But I tend to weigh my food which allows me to enter per gram/ounce.

I guess it'd be a pain if you were still going by measuring cups. But I think that you can easily enter fractions (versus decimals) of the servings...so again, I don't think it'll really be an issue or that much of a pain.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I weigh my food, but that doesn't help when I'm at the grocery store trying to compare cereals. Maybe my mental math skills just suck, but I'd have trouble trying to mentally decrease serving sizes between brands in my head to figure out how many calories a smaller serving size would actually have. Right now it's easy because the sizes listed on the box are already reasonable, so I can just compare from box to box without having to do a bunch of extra calculations. Not anymore after this goes through!

Francl27

Yes definitely need the calories for the whole box.

And no more of the 2 servings for pop tarts or soda bottles nonsense.

And I agree that the design looks very non professional and messy.

PikaKnight

Hmmm. I don't really see the issue. But I tend to weigh my food which allows me to enter per gram/ounce.

I guess it'd be a pain if you were still going by measuring cups. But I think that you can easily enter fractions (versus decimals) of the servings...so again, I don't think it'll really be an issue or that much of a pain.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I weigh my food, but that doesn't help when I'm at the grocery store trying to compare cereals. Maybe my mental math skills just suck, but I'd have trouble trying to mentally decrease serving sizes between brands in my head to figure out how many calories a smaller serving size would actually have. Right now it's easy because the sizes listed on the box are already reasonable, so I can just compare from box to box without having to do a bunch of extra calculations. Not anymore after this goes through!

Could you try to pre-plan the cereal you are getting? Research the types you'd like to consider getting and be familiar with that before you actually go shop?

TattooTwinset

With all the potassium and Vit D deficiencies now that will be a big benefit!

fast_eddie_72

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 often forget to take my reading glasses to the store and will appreciate it being bigger.

summertime_girl

Don't they have better things to regulate, like GMO foods and Monsanto?

piejin

Could you try to pre-plan the cereal you are getting? Research the types you'd like to consider getting and be familiar with that before you actually go shop?

If that's your line of thinking, then why even have nutritional information listed on the packaging if I have to look it all up before I go to the grocery store? Seems to defeat the purpose! Anyway, more than that I just think it's sad that the solution the government is taking is to adjust labels to reflect the majority's poor eating habits rather than trying to adjust the poor eating habits to improve people's health. We obviously have very different opinions, so that's my last word on the subject!