FLOTUS goes big on food label changes

[Spartan Erik]

Only thing this will do is appease the food nazis, no one else cares, and like said already, no one really reads the labels 

 

Michelle's futile campaign to change dietary habits has been that futile, and a big waste of time and resources

 

A bigger waste of time and resources will be when we treat all the obese people who don't understand how to read their food labels or understand portion control.

[duoi Veteran]

I don't understand why the US system includes the quantities of vitamins and minerals, as such information is irrelevant and serves only to distract from the more important values. It's also no good having the information if people don't understand it or won't pay attention to it, which is why simplified systems like the traffic-light scheme are so effective (when used in conjunction with more detailed information on the back). These changes are at best a modest improvement and don't go anywhere near far enough.

 

Traffic light schemes are fundamentally flawed in that they are not contextual. If I have just eaten 30 burgers, then an Apple would be extremely unhealthy. However if I haven't eaten anything all day, then a Big Mac would be healthier than an Apple.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Traffic light schemes are fundamentally flawed in that they are not contextual. If I have just eaten 30 burgers, then an Apple would be extremely unhealthy. However if I haven't eaten anything all day, then a Big Mac would be healthier than an Apple.

That's not a flaw, that's something beyond the scope of any labelling system. A traffic light system allows consumers to know at a glance the relative health values of particular products, particularly those that are unhealthy. That won't stop people buying unhealthy products, nor should it, but it at least makes people aware that such products are unhealthy. At the moment a lot of consumers are simply unaware of how unhealthy the products they are buying really are.

[theyarecomingforyou]

You'd be surprised what food manufactures class as a serving even here in the UK. They do it to try and sound healthier.

Yeah, some manufacturers definitely set out to mislead consumers. I've seen cakes listed as serving 20 portions when there's simply no way that's realistic.

 

As for showing vitamins etc? I know people who do care about that kind of information.

I'm not saying that such information is bad to have, just that it doesn't make sense to make it mandatory (especially if it distracts from the important information). If a product is rich in vitamins and minerals then manufacturers will advertise that of their own accord?breakfast cereals in the UK list such information prominently?but it is of no value to the average consumer, certainly not in comparison to information such as calories, carbohydrates, fat, protein, fibre and sodium.

[McKay]

I'm not saying that such information is bad to have, just that it doesn't make sense to make it mandatory (especially if it distracts from the important information). If a product is rich in vitamins and minerals then manufacturers will advertise that of their own accord?breakfast cereals in the UK list such information prominently?but it is of no value to the average consumer, certainly not in comparison to information such as calories, carbohydrates, fat, protein, fibre and sodium.

 

Cereals have to advertise how they've been "fortified" with vitamins and minerals because without them, cereal would be so devoid of nutrients they'd be 100% empty calories. As for vitamins minerals advertised, my friends buy a lot of canned fruit and veg etc because it goes into smoothies better and stores for longer, and will include that kind of info on the back. You think that info gets in the way? Even on the old style label they were at the bottom, out of the way. Calorie information was right at the top of the label.

[theyarecomingforyou]

Cereals have to advertise how they've been "fortified" with vitamins and minerals because without them, cereal would be so devoid of nutrients they'd be 100% empty calories. As for vitamins minerals advertised, my friends buy a lot of canned fruit and veg etc because it goes into smoothies better and stores for longer, and will include that kind of info on the back. You think that info gets in the way? Even on the old style label they were at the bottom, out of the way. Calorie information was right at the top of the label.

As I said, I don't consider such information to be necessary and believe it distracts from the more important information. Those products that benefit from displaying such information will do so voluntarily. However, I would argue that all manufacturers should be required to displayed detailed nutritional breakdowns of their products, including vitamins and minerals, on their websites or in a centralised location so that consumers interested in such information are able to find it. 

 

The biggest criticism of the new system is that it still doesn't list information according to a common scale, meaning that it's entirely dependent upon the serving size that manufacturer's opt for. In the UK all products have to list their nutritional values per 100g, as well as the individual portion size. This allows them to be much more easily compared.

[McKay]

As I said, I don't consider such information to be necessary and believe it distracts from the more important information. Those products that benefit from displaying such information will do so voluntarily. However, I would argue that all manufacturers should be required to displayed detailed nutritional breakdowns of their products, including vitamins and minerals, on their websites or in a centralised location so that consumers interested in such information are able to find it. 

 

The biggest criticism of the new system is that it still doesn't list information according to a common scale, meaning that it's entirely dependent upon the serving size that manufacturer's opt for. In the UK all products have to list their nutritional values per 100g, as well as the individual portion size. This allows them to be much more easily compared.

 

We're going to have to disagree on that. As I feel whether nor not information about Vitamins etc being "necessary" is down to opinion, without that info my friends would increase their supplements and cut back on actual fruit/veg. So to them that info is necessary. And of course it can lead to people realizing that food doesn't contain as much "goodness" as they previously thought. Or might make people realize certain foods contained more vitamins they were after than previously thought. As I said earlier that info is on the bottom of the sheet, below the info relating to Calories, fat and salt and in my opinion it's unobtrusive and out of the way.

 

Of course I can agree it should be per a standard of weight to help make sense of it.

[duoi Veteran]

That's not a flaw, that's something beyond the scope of any labelling system. A traffic light system allows consumers to know at a glance the relative health values of particular products, particularly those that are unhealthy. That won't stop people buying unhealthy products, nor should it, but it at least makes people aware that such products are unhealthy. At the moment a lot of consumers are simply unaware of how unhealthy the products they are buying really are.

 

There is no such thing as "unhealthy" products, and that's what my comment served to demonstrate. The last thing we need are more people with a confused state of what is and what isn't appropriate.