FDA redesigns nutrition panel
Options
Replies
-
This is embarrassing, but since I'm beginning to need reading glasses and hate always having to dig them out of my purse, the larger font size is great.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.
Yes and another step in the direction of education.
Right, because $2 billions dollars is nothing. Food isn't expensive. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Wendy... these changes don't take effect for two years. There is plenty of time for corporations to make adjustments in the capital expenditure to accomodate this change. I'm not saying it won't cost anything, but it's not as devastating as you might think. From an operations standpoint, it will be a bit of pain, but like was previously mentioned, package redesigns aren't unheard of, and therefore, not something they can't deal with. It's not like they have to roll out new nutrition panels next week. Now THAT would cost a fortune!
Oh, I did mention that earlier. But let's not pretend that it's negligible. When the original labels were introduced, it increased food prices and put some small companies out of business. A friend of mine nearly went out of business. The two year time frame will help, but that only means the cost will be spread out over time. It doesn't mean that there will be no cost at all.
And saying "package redesigns aren't unheard of" is also a far cry from OP's claims that it happens "constantly." Also, the $2B figure is from the FDA, which is probably grossly underestimated, though we won't know for sure until we see the market effects,
You should check out the Market Watch link I posted earlier. It was a good list of the pros and cons for consumers, I think.0 -
Here is my only real issue about the redesign:
Putting percentages first is out of context for everyone.
As a teacher of technical writing I am always telling my students that people need to know the main idea before we give them details. The "what" is the main idea here. What does this product contain that is good for me (or bad for me)?
We all like the information about total number of calories a serving and serving size at the top and easy to read because this is main idea: if we eat 1/4 a cup of trail mix it will be 160 calories. Why many of us don't like the left column with percentages is because it does not follow the rules.
Good technical writing theory would state that the most important information should come first, starting with what. So calories and serving size should obviously be first. What is next, if we do it by what people value, is going to be debated. However, if you go by FDA suggestions it should be carbohydrate, fat and protein information followed by nutrients our bodies need, and then at the end things we need to limit.
This suggestion would put salt and sugar at the very bottom of the panel making it easy to find. Generally speaking I will not put back an item for not containing enough of a vitamin or mineral but I will put it back for having too much salt, sugar or trans fat.
While, I can deal with whatever package design they throw at me and applaud the bigger font size (my husband often can't read box labels and it will be handy for him), it will be mildly depressing if I can use labels as an example in class of what not to do.
I agree completely. Most people are completely clueless about what those percentages mean or have any way to put them in context. I always ignore them. But then, I tend to buy single-ingredient items anyway, so they don't even have these labels on them.0 -
Not sure why I'm even weighing in on this, but when the original label was required, it would require a redesign of the entire package because it has to incorporate a large box of information, and everything used to be in that space had to be put somewhere else. Swapping some information around in a box that is the same size will be much more cost effective. It will take some redesign, but should be much cheaper than the initial change.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.
Yes and another step in the direction of education.
Right, because $2 billions dollars is nothing. Food isn't expensive. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Wendy... these changes don't take effect for two years. There is plenty of time for corporations to make adjustments in the capital expenditure to accomodate this change. I'm not saying it won't cost anything, but it's not as devastating as you might think. From an operations standpoint, it will be a bit of pain, but like was previously mentioned, package redesigns aren't unheard of, and therefore, not something they can't deal with. It's not like they have to roll out new nutrition panels next week. Now THAT would cost a fortune!
Oh, I did mention that earlier. But let's not pretend that it's negligible. When the original labels were introduced, it increased food prices and put some small companies out of business. A friend of mine nearly went out of business. The two year time frame will help, but that only means the cost will be spread out over time. It doesn't mean that there will be no cost at all.
And saying "package redesigns aren't unheard of" is also a far cry from OP's claims that it happens "constantly." Also, the $2B figure is from the FDA, which is probably grossly underestimated, though we won't know for sure until we see the market effects,
You should check out the Market Watch link I posted earlier. It was a good list of the pros and cons for consumers, I think.0 -
From their press release:
The agency is accepting public comment on the proposed changes for 90 days.
http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm387418.htm0 -
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.
Just my 2 cents and all, but...
-there's no need to make the calories *that* large. They weren't difficult to find before. On the plus side, I'm glad they got rid of the calories from fat. Seemed useless.
-On the subject of seeming useless, just ditch the daily values for macros and cholesterol, etc. I'm fine with them for micros, despite a lack of context.
-Yay potassium!
-Ironically, the change to the servings per container actually makes it harder to locate because it just blends more easily into the Nutrition Facts label at the top.
-remove the serving per amount just above the annoyingly large Calories label. I was fine with Amounts Per Serving.
-This probably isn't huge, but I'd kind of like to see soluble and insoluble fiber broken out.0 -
I really like the new design, the only thing I wish they would do is have a "per 100g" or "per 100ml" column, like in other countries. That way it is harder for them to use the serving size and laws about rounding down to hide certain things. If the serving size is 28g, and it has 0.4g of Trans-fat, they can put 0g on the label. But, if they also had to show it for 100g then you could easily tell there was some in there (it would show 1g because they could still round down again).0
-
YESSSSSSS!!!! that made my day:flowerforyou:0
-
I really like the new changes and think the changes will be beneficial to almost everyone!0
-
I hate the games companies play with the serving size. It needs to be standardized.
Now, if we could just get restaurants on the same system.0 -
I agree with the new display looking odd, but excited for the new information!0
-
-This probably isn't huge, but I'd kind of like to see soluble and insoluble fiber broken out.
I have actually seen that on oatmeal cartons.0 -
Seems like I may be the lone dissenter, but the practical side of me just thinks this is plain stupid.
1 - Increasing the serving size to "what people normally eat" which is more than they should, just encourages them to eat a full serving instead of exercising portion control.
2 - Forcing companies to redesign all of their packaging costs $$$... which is what we'll pay in continually rising costs. Nice for folks on a budget.. Thanks, Uncle Sam!
3 - If there truly is a demand for new food labeling, most likely companies that provide healthy foods will actually start adopting to meet consumer demands on their own. After all, they should be able to make more money if demand is that significant, right?
4 - Why do so many of my tax dollars go towards public education if people still can't do simple arithmetic... if you eat two servings, multiply the calories and by 2 and voila! Now you have your nutrition facts.0 -
Not sure why I'm even weighing in on this, but when the original label was required, it would require a redesign of the entire package because it has to incorporate a large box of information, and everything used to be in that space had to be put somewhere else. Swapping some information around in a box that is the same size will be much more cost effective. It will take some redesign, but should be much cheaper than the initial change.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.
Yes and another step in the direction of education.
Right, because $2 billions dollars is nothing. Food isn't expensive. These aren't the droids you're looking for.
Wendy... these changes don't take effect for two years. There is plenty of time for corporations to make adjustments in the capital expenditure to accomodate this change. I'm not saying it won't cost anything, but it's not as devastating as you might think. From an operations standpoint, it will be a bit of pain, but like was previously mentioned, package redesigns aren't unheard of, and therefore, not something they can't deal with. It's not like they have to roll out new nutrition panels next week. Now THAT would cost a fortune!
Oh, I did mention that earlier. But let's not pretend that it's negligible. When the original labels were introduced, it increased food prices and put some small companies out of business. A friend of mine nearly went out of business. The two year time frame will help, but that only means the cost will be spread out over time. It doesn't mean that there will be no cost at all.
And saying "package redesigns aren't unheard of" is also a far cry from OP's claims that it happens "constantly." Also, the $2B figure is from the FDA, which is probably grossly underestimated, though we won't know for sure until we see the market effects,
You should check out the Market Watch link I posted earlier. It was a good list of the pros and cons for consumers, I think.
Valid point!0 -
anything that will help consumers understand more about what they are putting into their bodies is good. that way, those of us that actually read the labels are better informed.0
-
I really like the added sugar line.. I would have to look up what they mean by that exactly so I can understand it better.
this will go into effect in 2 years.
I also like the vitamin D addition1 - Increasing the serving size to "what people normally eat" which is more than they should, just encourages them to eat a full serving instead of exercising portion control.
If an item is advertised as being an individual serving the label should reflect that. If a 20oz can of soda is considered a single serving and advertised as such, the labels should reflect that. Otherwise they should not be advertising it as a single serve item. I know the king size M&M bag is not intended for one, because they call it the "sharable" size. truth in advertising and labeling is important. The word sharing makes me more inclined too look at the label for nutrition info, if I am worried about such things. It is reasonable to believe that a label on a product refers to a full serving. if a cup of cereal is more then a serving, then something is wrong as a cup of cereal is not really that much. But cereals are often shown as 1/2 or 3/4 cup servings. Not realistic for what an average American consumes.
Just because a portion size does not conform to what most American eat does not mean most American over eat. Perhaps the portion sizes need adjusting because they are not accurate. I eat 6 oz of yogurt in a sitting because that is what fills me. Not because it comes that way. (actually my yogurt comes in 5.3 oz single serve containers, but i buy the big ones and portion it out myself) A chicken breast is rarely 4oz as is. The ones I get are much larger. Fish fillets are rarely 4oz,despite teh bag telling you they are, they are often only 2 ounces and I eat 8-12 ounces in one sitting. Hardly over eating.
Yes.. people can multiply by 2, but who does that in the grocery store? When I fill my cereal bowl it's a cup, which is one serving in my eyes. Not 2 or 1 1/4. I'd wager most people would agree with that. It's not people not exercising portion control. It's people eating what is enough and companies showing you the real nutrition information for what people normally eat. Which is the way it should be anyway.
At a minimum they could at least standardize serving sizes. 1/2 of one cereal, 3/4 cup of another, 1/4 of this one or a cup of that one.. no make them all a cup.. or better yet, tell me how many grams is one serving. that would be even better.0 -
I really like the added sugar line.. I would have to look up what they mean by that exactly so I can understand it better.
this will go into effect in 2 years.
I also like the vitamin D addition1 - Increasing the serving size to "what people normally eat" which is more than they should, just encourages them to eat a full serving instead of exercising portion control.
If an item is advertised as being an individual serving the label should reflect that. If a 20oz can of soda is considered a single serving and advertised as such, the labels should reflect that. Otherwise they should not be advertising it as a single serve item. I know the king size M&M bag is not intended for one, because they call it the "sharable" size. truth in advertising and labeling is important. The word sharing makes me more inclined too look at the label for nutrition info, if I am worried about such things. It is reasonable to believe that a label on a product refers to a full serving. if a cup of cereal is more then a serving, then something is wrong as a cup of cereal is not really that much. But cereals are often shown as 1/2 or 3/4 cup servings. Not realistic for what an average American consumes.
Just because a portion size does not conform to what most American eat does not mean most American over eat. Perhaps the portion sizes need adjusting because they are not accurate. I eat 6 oz of yogurt in a sitting because that is what fills me. Not because it comes that way. (actually my yogurt comes in 5.3 oz single serve containers, but i buy the big ones and portion it out myself) A chicken breast is rarely 4oz as is. The ones I get are much larger. Fish fillets are rarely 4oz,despite teh bag telling you they are, they are often only 2 ounces and I eat 8-12 ounces in one sitting. Hardly over eating.
Yes.. people can multiply by 2, but who does that in the grocery store? When I fill my cereal bowl it's a cup, which is one serving in my eyes. Not 2 or 1 1/4. I'd wager most people would agree with that. It's not people not exercising portion control. It's people eating what is enough and companies showing you the real nutrition information for what people normally eat. Which is the way it should be anyway.
At a minimum they could at least standardize serving sizes. 1/2 of one cereal, 3/4 cup of another, 1/4 of this one or a cup of that one.. no make them all a cup.. or better yet, tell me how many grams is one serving. that would be even better.
For one, you eat a tiny cereal bowl if it is only 1 cup. 2, just because that is the amount you eat doesn't mean it's anywhere close to the standard that anyone else eats. Serving size is super easy to figure out the way it is, no need to change it. They can't adjust the portion size to what everyone eats because everyone eats different aounts. Just because you THINK your 1 bowl of cereal is 1 serving doesn't mean it is.0 -
Cereal was a bad example, but my bowls are small. I rarely eat cereal anyway. My point is valid though. Especially with the items marketed as single serve items, but are not actually single serve.0
-
Cereal was a bad example, but my bowls are small. I rarely eat cereal anyway. My point is valid though. Especially with the items marketed as single serve items, but are not actually single serve.
It still only takes about 3 seconds of looking at the label to figure that out.0 -
Whoa, potassium and vit D on there. Nice.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions