Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
PROJECTCHRISSIE SparkPoints: (79,285)
Fitness Minutes: (66,335)
Posts: 1,041
3/1/14 5:43 P

You also have to watch the serving size on the package because that can change dramatically as well. Make sure that the calories counted are for the serving size of say for example 45g and not for 100g, it is very tricky. I have started to watch the salt intake as well, I was surprised to learn that diet coke has a very high sodium content, I don't drink it myself but my friends do. So while you drink it for the calorie or sugar content you could be having more sodium than your body needs, a good thing to know if you have high blood pressure and are drinking it.

I know that a lot of people with Diabetes drink diet coke, I wonder if they realise that it is high in salt.

LADYCJM SparkPoints: (56,678)
Fitness Minutes: (36,342)
Posts: 2,526
3/1/14 5:01 P

Before getting serious about weight loss, I really didn't pay that much attention to labels.

After getting serious about weight loss I started reading labels. It was a scary experience. 300 calories for a 1/3rd cup of granola? And my bowl holds 2 cups??? EEP

Single serving size packages that hold 3 servings at 150 calories a piece???? Really????

WIl the change in labeling help people? Maybe.

Not to be mean, but the average American reads at a 5th grade level. Patient education materials are supposed to be written at a 3rd grade level to help people understand what they are supposed to do and what their condition is.

Most people are illiterate when it comes to health and nutrition.

So if the bag has 1 serving = 560 calories in big bold letters someone might think twice.
I think teen girls will benefit as they are more calorie conscious then most other groups.
I think it might help diabetics who are trying to control their blood sugars.
Those of us who "woke up" will benefit as serving sizes/# of servings won't be in such small print.

I'm also trying to understand why it's going to cost so much to make new labels? Companies re label products a the time. Yeah, they have a deadline. So What? Most companies print on an as needed basis. They don't have stockpiles of labels. They retype the ingredient list into the computer and hit print. What they are trying to do is scare us into rejecting the labels so we wont know what we are eating.

FINDINGMYSELF61 SparkPoints: (1,916)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 59
2/28/14 11:13 A

The change may affect the way some people choose their food, on the other hand, most low income, large families, or those that need to penny pinch will still purchase the lower cost often unhealthier items to "keep their tummys full" and feeding their family than care about labeling or the type of food.. I volunteer at a food pantry twice a week and notice No One reading nutrition labels, they care more about whats available and how much food they are permitted. Sadly with price increases less individuals are donating and depend on store donations, which have decreased since some place out "food boxes" requesting donations from customers. Many stores themselves are choosing to donate their unsold/past experation date food to homeless shelters and soup kitchens than food pantries during this rough winter. So isn't making sure food is available at a reasonable price more important than labels-no food, people starve, and yes, a person can be obese, yet starving due to lack of nutrition.. One lady at the pantry told me that last week she gave her kids Potato Chips that were given to her as breakfast saying it would keep her kids full until school lunch! But I do agree what additives placed in foods should be restricted and food inspected before packaging.

Edited by: FINDINGMYSELF61 at: 2/28/2014 (11:16)
TRIMLAW SparkPoints: (28,473)
Fitness Minutes: (41,335)
Posts: 733
2/28/14 9:56 A

I love it!

MEXGAL1 SparkPoints: (415,013)
Fitness Minutes: (314,780)
Posts: 15,305
2/28/14 9:43 A

I think it's great

SUZIEQUE77 SparkPoints: (9,260)
Fitness Minutes: (40)
Posts: 1,065
2/28/14 8:20 A

While I see no harm in this idea, I would suggest that food industries have lots of time to make this transition because it does not seem like it would need to be costly.

As for me, I have been reading the labels for as far back as I can remember. I was actually quite happy when they started adding nutrition information to all packaged food, because prior to that, only some foods had this information.

I am a "math" person so I always figured out the number of calories, etc., for the size serving I would be eating, rather than the the dumb 3/4 of a package or whatever they might have listed. I do agree I always thought that was ridiculous to make weird unrealistic serving sizes to base the information on, but I have never been fooled by it.

And my last thought on this, I think most people who currently don't look too closely at labels will continue to ignore the labels. I truly do not think this is going to make some dramatic difference anywhere. If it is going to be a really costly venture for the food industry, then I'm against it as a waste of money that we all are forced to share the cost for.

Edited by: SUZIEQUE77 at: 2/28/2014 (08:23)
JANIEWWJD SparkPoints: (373,689)
Fitness Minutes: (275,087)
Posts: 10,283
2/27/14 11:59 P

I do read labels, and I do count calories. It really does help.

FENWAYGIRL18 Posts: 5,868
2/27/14 11:48 P

I don't care for the cost being passed down to us, food is expensive already and with all this crazy weather especially in California we're going to see prices sky rocket

BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,410
2/27/14 8:42 P

Yeah, that's fearmongering by the food manufacturers who would really rather stick to the old system where they could "hide" things. They have a 2-year phase in, don't they? They'll run out of existing stock on their old labels long before they are obligated to use the new ones. They already know what's in the food...

FINDINGMYSELF61 SparkPoints: (1,916)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
Posts: 59
2/27/14 8:03 P

I'm against the price increase that goes along with the "new labels".. todays news said it could cost millions of dollars to switch over to the new label system passing the cost on to consumers either by raising prices, downsizing amount of product or both. No More Price Increases for Food! Since this is another lame brained Michelle Obama Idea, Make her personally responsible for paying for the change!

JANCARD SparkPoints: (92,304)
Fitness Minutes: (80,260)
Posts: 2,055
2/27/14 7:48 P

I read labels before SP, but focusing on calories & fat. Since SP I started to read them much more closely and compare one brand to another for other items like sodium, cholesterol, and whether it contains protein (which I need to increase). Also being diligent about serving sizes. My pet peeve as far as confusing statements on what appears to be a single serving is when it says "About 2 servings". Am I supposed to do the math on that "about" a serving?

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 15,222
2/27/14 3:28 P

I sort of half heartedly read labels before I started with Spark.

A little while ago, I was in the grocery store looking for a quick lunch. And so I saw a calzone and thought. Oh the calories fat and carbs are not that much. The next week I had another and wiped the dust out of my eyes. And saw that it was two servings. I was then like, I knew it was too good to be true.

I am glad that companies have to change their information. Who is going to eat half a calzone?

BUNNYKICKS Posts: 2,410
2/27/14 3:17 P

I am REALLY happy about them putting a stop to the practice of packaging items in a way that encourages single-serving consumption, while labelling them as if they are multiple-servings-per-package.

I've seen individual bowls of instant ramen-style noodles marked "2 servings." It comes in a portable "add water nuke and eat" styrofoam bowl with a rip-away paper lid. How would you consume that as two servings?! It's not like they intend you to snap the lid back on and refrigerate the "2nd serving" for later.... or, could you imagine going to a friend's place for lunch, and she serves out an individual bowl of ramen noodles "family style"? Hahahaha!!!!

I've seen chocolate bars with individual serving sizes that didn't divide neatly... "Serving size - 4.8 squares, 5 servings per package." C'MON.

The only reason they do this is to try and disguise the calories/negative nutritional information from the end consumer, hoping that the consumer will see "calories per serving - 120" and stop there. And for the most part, that really is exactly what happens.So - hurrah that this obfuscation tactic will be shut down.

ALMISSE SparkPoints: (27,008)
Fitness Minutes: (7,130)
Posts: 716
2/27/14 2:17 P

I second the trans fat notion. I know they plan on banning it, but that could be awhile, and in the meantime we deserve to know.

SHERYLDS Posts: 15,866
2/27/14 2:15 P

before Spark ... I read labels but didn't count I wasn't as smart about serving sizes...I saw the calories and the brain just ignored the rest. Now .. with all the info ... I not only look at serving sizes first along with calories...but I look at ingredients. At this point, I don't trust processed foods.

I still want the FDA to post trans fats and not allow food manufactures to post 0% based on the serving size. If it has it.

ALMISSE SparkPoints: (27,008)
Fitness Minutes: (7,130)
Posts: 716
2/27/14 2:07 P

If it helps at least one person become more aware of their nutrition choices, it's a win in my book. I don't see any harm, just some benefit. Sure, a lot of people don't look, or don't care, but we can't expect everyone to. As some as some people are helped, it's a good thing.

SPARKLEYSHINE SparkPoints: (29,687)
Fitness Minutes: (4,869)
Posts: 732
2/27/14 1:59 P

I always have read the labels but it did not impact what I would eat...which is why I ended up here emoticon

I suppose it could change choices people make to some degree but let's get real, most people are creatures of habit and if they usually eat the whole bag of chips or drink that is really 2 to 2.5 servings they are going to continue to do so.

LOUNMOUN Posts: 1,332
2/27/14 1:10 P

I think the proposed changes in the nutrition labels are a good move.
I don't eat a lot of packaged foods but when I do, I do actually look at the label to see what a portion size is supposed to be or how much sugar is in it, etc. Better/clearer information will help me make better decisions.
I don't know if a label will change how people eat. It will be helpful to people who read labels already. People who don't read labels will probably not bother either way.

TRYINGHARD54 Posts: 5,288
2/27/14 12:16 P

I do read the labels .

MIZZFIT2 SparkPoints: (35,004)
Fitness Minutes: (14,439)
Posts: 1,541
2/27/14 12:11 P

The FDA is changing the label on food products and I realized before I started on sparks I never really looked at the amount of calories, carbs, fats, ect before I came here.

So my question is 2 parts.
Before you decided to lose weight did you look at labels?
Do you think the plan of changing the labels will effect how much people eat?

I'm thinking no it will not change things. I remember a years ago (I want to say 6-7 years ago) that it was required for fast food chains and food places to list the calories for everyone to see and know how much they were eating. The only thing I stopped eating when I saw the calories during that time was Taco Bell's Taco Salad (Yeah I about feel out of my seat when I saw over 1,500 calories on one item). I still see calories listed at McDonalds but I didn't think about it until I started counting my calories.
What are your thoughts on this new change?

Page: 1 of (1)  

Other SparkPeople Cafe Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
Support System 6/24/2015 3:32:10 PM
Anyone do subscription boxes? 7/9/2015 9:43:04 AM
Whats your motivation? 7/24/2015 3:07:43 AM
question on calories 3/7/2015 1:11:34 PM
Picky dog mom looking for new dog food 5/31/2015 6:59:59 AM