FDA redesigns nutrition panel

chubby_checkers · February 2014

I agree with the new display looking odd, but excited for the new information!

WendyTerry420 · February 2014

-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.

mereditheve · February 2014

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.

WendyTerry420 · February 2014

show previous quotes

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.

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.

Valid point!

ernestbecker · February 2014

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.

Confuzzled4ever · February 2014

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 addition

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.

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.

moosegt35 · February 2014

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 addition
show previous quotes

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.

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.

Confuzzled4ever · February 2014

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.

moosegt35 · February 2014

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.

ksuh999 · February 2014

Whoa, potassium and vit D on there. Nice.

neanderthin · February 2014

It's an improvement.

RockWarrior84 · February 2014

from what I have heard the biggest change will be to serving sizes. So they will try to get servings sizes to accurately portray what people actually eat/drink so that the calories are not misleading.

Example: that bottles of soda will not longer be 2.5 servings and will be shown as 1 serving per bottle/can.

1shauna1 · February 2014

I like that it highlights how many servings are per container; a lot of people miss that. Hopefully Canada will take a cue from this!

Jill_with_a_G · March 2014

Old label, new label, I will adapt to whatever label they put on the package. I think we all will......here.....

WE all look at the labels because we care. The ones that really need the label clearly stated and easy to read are the ones that wont read it anyway but need to....

FDA redesigns nutrition panel

Replies

Welcome!

Quick Links

Categories