Author: Sorting Last Post on Top Message:
RENATARUNS SparkPoints: (4,217)
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
Posts: 1,329
2/28/14 3:11 P

"I did notice that a few of my (highly) conservative friends and family members are quite upset about this, stating that they believe this is more evidence of government meddling in our lives."

Don't worry about it, they're just spouting off what all good conservatives are supposed to spout off regarding anything remotely resembling governmental regulation. It has no relation whatsoever to common sense.

Personally, I really like the 'added sugars' change, because for many foods it's next to impossible to know to what extent they've been tinkered with without that information. And I love the serving size changes. Unrealistically small servings is one of my major annoyances with the discussion of nutrition.

Edited by: RENATARUNS at: 2/28/2014 (15:22)
MRSAND Posts: 1,123
2/28/14 3:06 P

I hope Sparkpeople will add "Added sugar" as a trackable nutrient on Sparkpeople nutrition tracker

FRESHBEGINNINGS Posts: 269
2/28/14 2:47 P


I hate that they are deducting calories from fat.

That is one I look at.

ALGEBRAGIRL Posts: 1,875
2/28/14 11:58 A

I really like the way potassium has been added. It's puzzling that this does not show up on the example given in the link provided. I have seen an example elsewhere in which potassium shows up beneath protein. The listing would have 'vitamin D, calcium, iron, potassium.' Vitamins A and C are allowed but not required.

Calories are in bold and very large. Servings are bolded and large, although not as large as the calories.

It will be interesting to see what difference any of this makes.

(I also noticed that in the example shown, the percentage of fiber has changed - for the same food - which would reflect that now the fiber intake requirement must be higher. Huh? When did that happen...)



Edited by: ALGEBRAGIRL at: 2/28/2014 (12:14)
KABMPH SparkPoints: (33,128)
Fitness Minutes: (32,547)
Posts: 733
2/28/14 7:54 A

I am most excited to learn more about how much sugar is added vs. natural. Yogurt is my main concern.

I was just a young teen when the labels changed in the early 90s so I don't remember how the media talked about it. I remember seeing a difference (I've always been a label reader!), but I wonder how it was presented to the public.



DEANNA0725 SparkPoints: (22,611)
Fitness Minutes: (13,947)
Posts: 2,072
2/28/14 6:15 A

I think it is a step in the right direction for those of us who actually look at the nutrition information and I am hoping that people who do not look at the information takes the time to start looking at it. I am one of those who never cared what the back of the package said, but now that it is something that I am interested in I have taught my family and some of my co-workers to pay attention to the information on the back of the package. Education is knowledge which is power.

LADYSTARWIND SparkPoints: (32,880)
Fitness Minutes: (27,732)
Posts: 1,813
2/27/14 10:50 P

Online Now  • ))
Disappointed it will take as much or more than TWO YEARS!! Should be a six month requirement that the Information is online, and perhaps with the provision that existing labels can be phased out over the two years.... (Shelf Life, Printing concerns, etc....packaging costs being what they are, I wouldn't want to pay for more!!))

WHOLENEWME79 Posts: 943
2/27/14 8:35 P

I'm pretty excited about this change. I read food labels all the time, and I find they leave a lot to be desired, and can be pretty confusing. I am also pretty happy with the idea of labeling added sugar, since so many folks have a desire to know that sort of thing.

Hopefully this new labeling, since there is so much awareness that the change is going to happen, will help people make more informed choices.

I did notice that a few of my (highly) conservative friends and family members are quite upset about this, stating that they believe this is more evidence of government meddling in our lives. I do not feel that way at all, since it is just a label. It's not like it will reach out and slap you for drinking an entire liter of Orange Crush something.

MANDIETERRIER1 Posts: 13,890
2/27/14 1:51 P

I hope they change package information from raw to when it is cooked. Seriosly who eats dry spaghetti and cake mix?

MISSRUTH Posts: 3,882
2/27/14 1:39 P

Sometimes I think (and I'm speaking just in generalities here, about a thought) that people (in general) are not interested in the nutrition information, UNTIL they have a "reason" to be interested. Sick and tired of being overweight, or diagnosed with diabetes or a heart condition, or a vitamin deficiency or something else that is directly affected by what/ how much they consume. Their kid's pediatrician could say, feed that child more protein, and then mom starts looking at the labels for protein grams. When a week ago, she wasn't looking at all.

And I do not think the point of the nutrition labels is to be that "reason". Once they have that "reason".... the labels provide the information, to make an informed choice. And updating the information on the labels is a step in the right direction. But it isn't going to make someone suddenly interested in nutrition information, all by itself.

Personally, I'm really happy that they'll be showing added sugars. I'm not so concerned about sugar that occurs naturally in food-- fructose in an apple or lactose in milk, for example. But if they've added sugar to something.... I want to know about it.

I was disappointed that food companies will have 2 years to change to the new labels.

MIZZFIT2 SparkPoints: (31,757)
Fitness Minutes: (13,243)
Posts: 1,479
2/27/14 12:44 P

I'm with Miss on this one. I think those that pay attention to labels will love it, but I don't see how it will help those that don't pay attention to labels. Before I started on SP I didn't think about how many calories or all the nutrition facts. I know people who pay attention to it and are mindful but those are few and far in-between.
I'm glad they are changing the labels on one end, but I don't think it will help the obsesity rate the way it is going. I realized the problems are: not paying attention to calories and indulgence. I didn't get this way because of eating, I got this way because I ate what was out there and I could eat what I wanted. There is a joy to food for some people that slapping a big calorie in front of them won't fix.


MISSSVJS SparkPoints: (8,732)
Fitness Minutes: (11,474)
Posts: 616
2/27/14 11:05 A

I guess it's okay - I remember when there was very little nutritional information on packaged food. However, I seriously doubt it's going to have a huge impact - people that want to drink a soda or eat a package of peanut M & M's are going to do so regardless of the change in the nutritional label - most likely don't pay much attention to them anyway. Guess I'm skeptical that it will do much good and will likely only end up raising the prices on food items to curtail the cost of having to revamp the food labels.

CALLMECARRIE Posts: 1,598
2/27/14 10:21 A

I think this is great. It bothers me when my husband buys a box of frozen soft pretzels and the serving size is .6 a pretzel. Or when I pick up a 1-pound Oriental Chicken Salad kit at Costco and the label says there are seven servings per package. (Seven toddlers?) It's obvious that some food manufacturers try to obfuscate to confuse people who are trying to calculate calories. This is overdue.

JUSTEATREALFOOD Posts: 1,615
2/27/14 10:09 A

I'm glad they will be making the serving sizes more along what people actually eat. Love that they have Added sugars along with sugars listed.

I didn't think the before nutrition label was that hard to understand, it's pretty straightforward.


Making sure real food is listed on the ingredients label of my food is much more important to me than how many calories are in my food.

Edited by: JUSTEATREALFOOD at: 2/27/2014 (10:12)
LEC358 SparkPoints: (10,193)
Fitness Minutes: (6,555)
Posts: 2,430
2/27/14 10:07 A

Cool beans. They did a segment on this on Morning Joe this morning and the female anchor went a bit spastic on set (she's a health food nut) about how the Nutrition Label on Doritos shouldn't be called a nutrition label since there are no nutrients in Doritos. I could only wince. I understand her point, but she could have made it in a less shrill way.

MAGTASTIC103 Posts: 424
2/27/14 10:01 A

I definitely like the idea of changing a 20 oz. beverage to one serving...seriously, who portions a convenience item out? Hopefully they'll do this on the small bags of chips and popcorn that you'd get at a convenience store too. Those are usually 2.5 servings in a bag. Seeing the total calories would definitely make me think twice before buying them on a road trip.

I like the idea of more emphasis on Vitamin D, but how many foods, besides eggs and milk and fish, have Vitamin D? Cereals maybe? I have a D deficiency so I'm always trying to add it into my diet.

Aesthetically I think I liked the %DV on the right, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. And good riddance to the calories from fat...the measurement in grams is sufficient. The added sugar distinction intrigues me. it would be nice to know how much is naturally occurring and how much is added.

DRAGONCHILDE SparkPoints: (58,043)
Fitness Minutes: (14,252)
Posts: 9,673
2/27/14 9:00 A

www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/health/nutrition-la
bels-changes/index.html?hpt=hp_c2


Looks like the FDA is making some great improvements on nutrition labels, emphasizing calories, improving serving size clarity, (No more two servings in a 20 oz bottle) and emphasizing vitamin D, potassium, and added sugar.

What do you guys think?

Page: 1 of (1)  




Other Diet and Nutrition Topics:

Topics: Last Post:
EGGS, Good or Bad? 1/19/2014 3:09:17 PM
Tracker Blunders and Goofs 2/15/2014 8:33:51 AM
When to record a 2am snack 2/18/2014 9:23:16 PM
Where are the healthy recipes? 1/7/2014 1:27:41 PM
cornflakes 12/29/2013 5:12:14 PM

Diet Resources: Coffee and a Diet | 5K training | 10K training