New nutrition labels

[Bullgrit]

What do you think about the new nutrition labels for food?

As someone who looks at nutrition labels daily, for everything I eat:

I like having the calories listed in a larger font size, so I can see it. And the larger size for servings per container is good, but I wish the serving size was also larger. I don't understand why they're flipping the daily % to the left side versus the right is for -- the % is of no use to me, (is it for anyone?). And I don't know what use knowing the added sugars is -- is that something that wasn't normally included in the sugars line anyway?

Bullgrit

 

[delericho]

What do you think about the new nutrition labels for food?

Seems fine, but then I don't see anything wrong with the other version either.

the % is of no use to me, (is it for anyone?).

Given that the recommended values are different for children vs adults, and men vs women, I don't see how the percentages can be of any use.

And I don't know what use knowing the added sugars is -- is that something that wasn't normally included in the sugars line anyway?

I would have thought so. Things like fruit contain plenty of natural sugars, so a carton of orange juice may have as much as, say, a Mars bar, but the "added sugars" value would be very different.

 

[Kramodlog]

And I don't know what use knowing the added sugars is -- is that something that wasn't normally included in the sugars line anyway?

Take your favorite morning cereal. Say it is made of wheat. Wheat as starch in it, a sugar that is naturally there. Now imagine those cereals are Frosted Fakes, you'll know the quantity of sugar Kellog's added the wheat.

It creates awareness of what you eat. It is education, and that is good.

 

[GMMichael]

Has protein actually been removed from our "Nutrition Facts?" Or is that a slip of the example?

Calories from Fat seems to have been removed. So people who don't know how many calories are provided by one gram of carbs, fat, and protein now have less information.

"Added Sugars" is just a stepping stone. The next version of the NFs will remove the "Sugars" category, based on the argument that it's not necessary to have both sugars and added sugars. So foods made with high fructose corn syrup will be able to claim they have 0g added sugars, and thus look more healthy.

Also, let's remember how bad our current NFs are: they include only 4 vitamins/minerals. There used to be a slew of vitamins and minerals listed. The food supply is getting less and less healthy, and the "Nutrition Facts" are slowly evolving to hide that fact.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Has protein actually been removed from our "Nutrition Facts?" Or is that a slip of the example?

It's possible that the new abel is actually a bit longer. The larger font for the calories takes up a bit more space on the label, and it probably made the label longer

Calories from Fat seems to have been removed. So people who don't know how many calories are provided by one gram of carbs, fat, and protein now have less information.

Yeah, I noticed that. not a good thing.

"Added Sugars" is just a stepping stone. The next version of the NFs will remove the "Sugars" category, based on the argument that it's not necessary to have both sugars and added sugars. So foods made with high fructose corn syrup will be able to claim they have 0g added sugars, and thus look more healthy.

That's actually what I was thinking could happen. The corn industry, which produces a lot profits from HFCS also has a lot of sway, what with how much money they throw around.

Also, let's remember how bad our current NFs are: they include only 4 vitamins/minerals. There used to be a slew of vitamins and minerals listed. The food supply is getting less and less healthy, and the "Nutrition Facts" are slowly evolving to hide that fact.

Yup, totally agree.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Seems fine, but then I don't see anything wrong with the other version either.

The most important change, IMHO, is how they're changing serving size rules, especially for things that tend to be consumed by the package or were otherwise giving label data based on serving sizes nobody actually uses. (This was mentioned in an article about the change, not actually evident on the examples themselves.)

IOW, no more "Servings per can: 1.5" or "Serving size: 2/3rds cookie" type stuff.

Edit: not where I read it fort, but I just stumbled on an article describing that particular element of the change.

https://www.yahoo.com/food/fda-revamps-nutrition-label-serving-size-humiliation-78029209557.html

 

[Jhaelen]

I'm neutral about it - besides, the labels look somewhat different in the EU, anyway.

One thing I'd like to see changed is getting rid of basing information on 'servings'. E.g. giving the calories of 30g of potato chips on a bag containing 175g. That information is useless and misleading, since it's a completely unrealistic assumption. An actual serving would be much bigger. I'd prefer if manufacturers would be forced to include the overall calories of the entire bag instead (in addition to the calories/100g).