New Nutrition Labels!
Options
kthompson601
Posts: 174 Member
Replies
-
Lame. I highly doubt this will make any difference.0
-
I like the updated serving sizes to reflect a "normal" serving and the addition of "added sugar," since that's the only type of sugar that the FDA has developed guidelines for. The larger print and bold font seems silly to me. Consumers who are interested in the nutrition information will look for it and consumers who aren't interested won't be swayed by bold font.0
-
Won't make much difference to me, as I understand the labels as they are, read ingredients, and don't get a lot of highly processed stuff anyway. They do look moderately easier to read and I am not opposed to labeling added sugar.0
-
I like the updated serving sizes to reflect a "normal" serving and the addition of "added sugar," since that's the only type of sugar that the FDA has developed guidelines for. The larger print and bold font seems silly to me. Consumers who are interested in the nutrition information will look for it and consumers who aren't interested won't be swayed by bold font.
I like the larger print and bolded parts...especially since my eyes aren't so good. It draws attention to what people are reading the label for anyway.1 -
•Updated serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put into place in 1993. By law, serving sizes must be based on the portion consumers actually eat.
Isn't that kind of vague? Can't my portion that I actually eat be completely different to the next persons?
If I am allowed 3000 calories to maintain my weight, I may have a much larger portion of something than a person who only has 1800 calories to maintain.
How would that be enforced?0 -
•Updated serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put into place in 1993. By law, serving sizes must be based on the portion consumers actually eat.
Isn't that kind of vague? Can't my portion that I actually eat be completely different to the next persons?
If I am allowed 3000 calories to maintain my weight, I may have a much larger portion of something than a person who only has 1800 calories to maintain.
How would that be enforced?
Interesting questions. One thing I read was the standard ice cream was 1/2 a cup and will now be 2/3 a cup. I read that as the serving size was being given to them.
Of course it's silly to me, I eat 1/2 cup a night and won't be eating any more. Stupid thing about ice cream is looking at the different brands the weights vary by almost 100% depending on how much air is whipped in.0 -
markrgeary1 wrote: »•Updated serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put into place in 1993. By law, serving sizes must be based on the portion consumers actually eat.
Isn't that kind of vague? Can't my portion that I actually eat be completely different to the next persons?
If I am allowed 3000 calories to maintain my weight, I may have a much larger portion of something than a person who only has 1800 calories to maintain.
How would that be enforced?
Interesting questions. One thing I read was the standard ice cream was 1/2 a cup and will now be 2/3 a cup. I read that as the serving size was being given to them.
Of course it's silly to me, I eat 1/2 cup a night and won't be eating any more. Stupid thing about ice cream is looking at the different brands the weights vary by almost 100% depending on how much air is whipped in.
That's why you should weigh your food rather than go by volume.
As far as the portion sizes go, you can have as many or as few (or fractions thereof) as you want. It's just a general guideline, and I think they've been using a 2000 cal diet as the rule of thumb since forever.
0 -
When I opened the link, I was hoping the update would include displaying calories per container. Sigh...0
-
The changes seem almost pointless to me, ... but hey, if it brings about some awareness and gets people talking about reading labels in the first place, then I can see some good coming out of it.0
-
When I opened the link, I was hoping the update would include displaying calories per container. Sigh...
Actually, they do. From the Atlantic article:
“Dual column” labels to indicate both “per serving” and “per package” calorie and nutrition information for certain multi-serving food products that could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings. Examples include a pint of ice cream and a 3-ounce bag of chips. With dual-column labels available, people will be able to easily understand how many calories and nutrients they are getting if they eat or drink the entire package/unit at one time.
1 -
the changes seem pretty useless to me. anyone who's going to bother reading a label won't need big bold text, and anyone i know (which is most people) who don't real the labels still won't bother regardless of text size.
also i don't really care if the sugar is added or naturally occurring - sugar is sugar. to me, the sugar changes on the label seem like a response to the current demonizing of sugar. much sugar comes from sugar cane, a naturally occuring planty - it's not made in an evil laboratory somewhere.
to me, improvements in labeling would have included:
- requiring potassium info to be listed - it's currently optional, yet anyone on a diuretic should know this.
- showing hard amounts rather than percentages for stuff like iron and vitamin c. women over menopause and men over 50 are supposed to have half the iron of the "average" adult, and pregnant women have differing requirements.
- tightening the accuracy requirements for labeling. some variation is to be expected, but right now, manufacturers have an amount of leeway that makes taking the labeling seriously difficult.
0 -
itsbasschick wrote: »
- requiring potassium info to be listed - it's currently optional, yet anyone on a diuretic should know this.
- showing hard amounts rather than percentages for stuff like iron and vitamin c. women over menopause and men over 50 are supposed to have half the iron of the "average" adult, and pregnant women have differing requirements.
- tightening the accuracy requirements for labeling. some variation is to be expected, but right now, manufacturers have an amount of leeway that makes taking the labeling seriously difficult.
An updated list of nutrients required to be declared based off of public health significance. Vitamin D and potassium—nutrients Americans often do not get enough of—will be required. Calcium and iron will continue to be required. Vitamins A and C are no longer required but can be included on a voluntary basis.
Vitamin C is no longer required, but potassium will be.
1 -
From the FDA:itsbasschick wrote: »to me, improvements in labeling would have included:
- requiring potassium info to be listed - it's currently optional, yet anyone on a diuretic should know this.
"The list of nutrients that are required or permitted to be declared is being updated. Vitamin D and potassium will be required on the label. Calcium and iron will continue to be required. Vitamins A and C will no longer be required but can be included on a voluntary basis."
"Manufacturers must declare the actual amount, in addition to percent Daily Value of vitamin D, calcium, iron and potassium. They can voluntarily declare the gram amount for other vitamins and minerals."itsbasschick wrote: »- showing hard amounts rather than percentages for stuff like iron and vitamin c. women over menopause and men over 50 are supposed to have half the iron of the "average" adult, and pregnant women have differing requirements.
0 -
I love it!!0
-
I like that if multiple servings are in a food they show the entire packages calories
The only thing I'm disappointed in is that they don't show your percentage of sugar limit for the day
That's really it's biggest downfall and out of everything that should've been something they changed
Doesn't help the diabetes or obesity epidemic at all0 -
Well, for obesity, the larger font and calories for total packaging will give people less of an excuse to ignore it. People still will, but it'll at least take blame off nutrition labels.Doesn't help the diabetes or obesity epidemic at all
As for diabetics: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitness/food/what-can-i-eat/understanding-carbohydrates/sugar-and-desserts.html
0 -
Oreo cookie serving - 1 cookie
I wonder what the "more realistic serving size" will be.0 -
When I opened the link, I was hoping the update would include displaying calories per container. Sigh...
Because math is soooo hard. 8 servings per container, 230 calories per serving. 8x230. 1840 calories. And I didn't even need a calculator.
We're getting dumber as a population because we're being dumbed down. I don't see the new labels as anything more than increased nannyism.0 -
Font size doesn't bother me, as long as people can start at the top and know what they need to know by the time they reach the bottom. That being said, the main issue I had with the old version was which nutrients were required to be labeled and that's been fixed.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
- 391 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
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions