Cuisine at home Forums
New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Printable Version

+- Cuisine at home Forums (https://www.forums.cuisineathome.com)
+-- Thread: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA (/showthread.php?tid=159915)



New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Cubangirl - 03-05-2014

Here's a link to the new nutrition label being considered by the FDA.

A foodie friend suggested this one should also be included:

Warning: This person makes fantastic food with epic amounts of butter, lard, duck fat, cheese, eggs, and cream. While this person's cuisine is trans-fat free, it is loaded with calories and saturated fat. This person will also likely ply you with alcoholic beverages, pasta, artisanal baked goods, and desserts.


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - cjs - 03-05-2014

It's ridiculous in my opinion - the same folks reading them now will be reading those.

There needs to be a generic 'flash card' type banner on front of food meeting whatever criteria they set that says this is an approved food. That's all that would be needed - more info on the back.


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Cubangirl - 03-05-2014

I am not sure what you mean by "approved food".


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Harborwitch - 03-05-2014

I really think it makes sense. All those 100 calorie soups - that's for like 2/3 of a can . . . who eats 2/3 of a can of soup or drinks 1/2 a bottle of soda. If calories, fat, and salt are more accurately measured by what a normal portion really is I think it will make more sense. It is simply to more accurately reflect the serving.

By thay - I like to be plyed with duck fat, butter, cream, and . . .


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - cjs - 03-05-2014

What I mean is, whenever 'the powers that be' decide what is acceptable for cal/servings - make that the criteria for "This is a Healthy food"

I don't know exactly what it could be, I'm just sure that the same people reading labels will continue, the others...not. So, maybe things ought to be over-simplified. Just tossing out ideas here.


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Cubangirl - 03-05-2014

Problem anything can be unhealthy if not eaten in moderation. There is a lot of controversy as to what is healthy. Some say use agave, others say it is worse than sugar. Coffee is touted now as helping with a lot of things, but a few years ago, caffeine was a no-no. Remember when we were supposed to use margarine instead of butter. So at least putting realistic servings in the packaging is a step forward. Including added sugars is also a good step. As far as I can tell they are not taking anything away, just making the most important stuff clearer.


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Mare749 - 03-05-2014

I know it would make it easier for me if the serving sizes were more realistic. Example: We often share a can of tomato soup. It works out to approx. 11 oz. each and fits perfectly into our soup mugs. However, the can gives nutritional information for 2 1/2 servings.


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - cjs - 03-05-2014

I can't solve the whole thing, I was just throwing out ideas to be incorporated.

Sometimes things just have to be put on our own heads!!!


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - Trixxee - 03-05-2014

Quote:

I know it would make it easier for me if the serving sizes were more realistic. Example: We often share a can of tomato soup. It works out to approx. 11 oz. each and fits perfectly into our soup mugs. However, the can gives nutritional information for 2 1/2 servings.




This drives me nuts. Cans of tuna often do this too. NO FRACTIONS on serving sizes. People don't come in fractions.


Re: New nutrition label being considered by the FDA - DFen911 - 03-05-2014

I wish they sold items as 1 serving, 2 servings etc. I hate the 2.5 servings thing.