Posts: 1,374
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2009
03-05-2014, 03:00 AM
Re: (...)
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.
Posts: 33,877
Threads: 126
Joined: Jan 2006
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.
Retired and having fun writing cookbooks, tasting wine and sharing recipes with all my friends.
www.achefsjourney.com
Posts: 1,374
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2009
I am not sure what you mean by "approved food".
Posts: 9,484
Threads: 21
Joined: Apr 2006
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 . . .
You only live once . . . but if you do it right once should be enough!
Posts: 33,877
Threads: 126
Joined: Jan 2006
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.
Retired and having fun writing cookbooks, tasting wine and sharing recipes with all my friends.
www.achefsjourney.com
Posts: 1,374
Threads: 11
Joined: Jan 2009
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.
Posts: 12,139
Threads: 28
Joined: Nov 2006
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.
Maryann
"Drink your tea slowly and reverently..."
Posts: 33,877
Threads: 126
Joined: Jan 2006
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!!!
Retired and having fun writing cookbooks, tasting wine and sharing recipes with all my friends.
www.achefsjourney.com
Posts: 6,477
Threads: 6
Joined: Oct 2007
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.
Posts: 6,277
Threads: 3
Joined: Feb 2006
I wish they sold items as 1 serving, 2 servings etc. I hate the 2.5 servings thing.