Democrats To Mandate Food Labels ON FRONT Of Packaging

[Patranus]

You can't make this stuff up...

Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius said today that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is developing a new regulation that would require food manufacturers to display nutritional information on the front of packages.

“Busy shoppers will be able to go into grocery stores and have some easy to understand information on the front of packages giving them quick data on what is a healthier choice,” said Sebelius at the U.S. Capitol.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959

Because it is so hard to turn around a package.

I am so glad government has all of this money to invent pointless regulations.

Oh no! I need government to save me from myself. I am too lazy to turn a package around

Maybe if the Obama administration spent 1/2 the time it spends on all of these pointless project on the economy, unemployment would be under 10%.

 

[UberNeuman]

On frot!

\guess if you can't spell, you may need the print on the "frot."

 

[Descartes]

Honestly, before package labeling was mandated to the extent it is now, I'm quite sure there would have been plenty of the same naysayers saying, "Oh no! I need government to save me from myself."

The reality is that people don't. You can sit there on your soapbox and call everyone lazy or you can acknowledge that we have a long-standing problem with how food is presented in the marketplace and come up with solutions.

What I don't think you're understand is marketing. People don't investigate to find something out. They look, very casually, and generally make a quick determination based on some largely superficial data. Having the label on the front of the box will absolutely make a difference in how consumers make purchases.

Finally, some people think that our food supply is of equal importance to much else. I think this is a bit silly, too, but solutions to deal with the epidemic of poor eating habits is a tremendous priority for us all.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

This is aimed at the tl,dnr crowd. Putting the labels on the front is not going to change the attention span of that crowd.

Those who care about nutritional information will turn the package around. Those who don't care will buy whatever they think tastes good to them. Putting labels on the front will make no significant difference.

 

[WHAMPOM]

To be healthy don't buy processed foods, fresh, frozen, canned in that order. Then you can add your own choice of poison. When you get twenty ingredients listed on a label, you are not buying food, you are buying a chemistry set.

 

[UberNeuman]

This is aimed at the tl,dnr crowd. Putting the labels on the front is not going to change the attention span of that crowd.

Those who care about nutritional information will turn the package around. Those who don't care will buy whatever they think tastes good to them. Putting labels on the front will make no significant difference.

So, then... it doesn't matter...

 

[Ozoned]

You can't make this stuff up...




http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959

Because it is so hard to turn around a package.

I am so glad government has all of this money to invent pointless regulations.

Oh no! I need government to save me from myself. I am too lazy to turn a package around

Maybe if the Obama administration spent 1/2 the time it spends on all of these pointless project on the economy, unemployment would be under 10%.

I would like to have the country of origin shown on packaged food. I am really leary of the shit coming from china and there is a lot of it...

 

[nageov3t]

To be healthy don't buy processed foods, fresh, frozen, canned in that order. Then you can add your own choice of poison. When you get twenty ingredients listed on a label, you are not buying food, you are buying a chemistry set.

just because something is unprocessed, that doesn't make it good for you, and vice versa.

I like this change. it'll save me a few minutes in the grocery store every time I go... there's also a bit that was slipped into the health care bill about making fast food chains display calorie counts on their menus which I thought was awesome too.

now if we could just get caloric maximums in our school lunches..

 

[ShawnD1]

I like this idea. Why? Because it will be funny to see absolutely no change.

I don't understand what the goal of this is. If you're too stupid to figure out where the nutritional information is, then you're probably too stupid to understand what the information means.

:awe: "this one has 350 calories"
:hmm: "is that a lot?"
:awe: "I don't know!"

now if we could just get caloric maximums in our school lunches..

Fuck no. Everything my parents had in their house when I lived there was low calories, and I was always hungry because of it. Need energy? Just eat 3 bowls of cereal! I just got back from the store and one of my purchases was a 6-pack of muffins. These muffins have 790 calories each. This is enough energy for at least 5 hours! Cereal and low calorie food are for people who have way too much free time and don't mind eating nonstop just to get their minimum 2000 daily calories. Students don't have a lot of free time. We should be able to grab a fish burger with 800 calories, dripping with grease, and run to class.

 

[JSt0rm]

what i want is a list of the steroids and pesticides used

 

[Perknose]

ZOMG, more easily accessible information, wasn't that one of Hitler's demands on Poland? D:

 

[Descartes]

This is aimed at the tl,dnr crowd. Putting the labels on the front is not going to change the attention span of that crowd.

Those who care about nutritional information will turn the package around. Those who don't care will buy whatever they think tastes good to them. Putting labels on the front will make no significant difference.

That's an absurd assertion and flies in the face of basic marketing principles. Of course front placement will make a difference and almost every manufacturer counts on this for being the case. Marketing is about perception, not products. That's a basic truth that pervades all products.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

ZOMG, more easily accessible information, wasn't that one of Hitler's demands on Poland? D:

Those remotes with the huge number keys were a great idea too.

 

[nageov3t]

Fuck no. Everything my parents had in their house when I lived there was low calories, and I was always hungry because of it. Need energy? Just eat 3 bowls of cereal! I just got back from the store and one of my purchases was a 6-pack of muffins. These muffins have 790 calories each. This is enough energy for at least 5 hours! Cereal and low calorie food are for people who have way too much free time and don't mind eating nonstop just to get their minimum 2000 daily calories. Students don't have a lot of free time. We should be able to grab a fish burger with 800 calories, dripping with grease, and run to class.

I'm referring to federally funded school cafeteria lunches that the FDA has control over, not whatever college students choose to grab out of the fridge.

the FDA mandates minimum calories but no maximum, so there's basically no reason to, say, serve a salad rather than french fries.

 

[ShawnD1]

That's an absurd assertion and flies in the face of basic marketing principles. Of course front placement will make a difference and almost every manufacturer counts on this for being the case. Marketing is about perception, not products. That's a basic truth that pervades all products.

Cigarettes sold in Canada have stupid labels on them such as a picture of 2 kids with their arms crossed saying "don't poison us!" There's also one about impotence, one about how smoking is really bad for fetuses. Putting that on the package had no effect whatsoever.

If people can see a package with a picture of a cancerous lung on it and still buy 3 packs, I doubt putting some numbers on a box of food will do anything.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

That's an absurd assertion and flies in the face of basic marketing principles. Of course front placement will make a difference and almost every manufacturer counts on this for being the case. Marketing is about perception, not products. That's a basic truth that pervades all products.

If that's so then why haven't marketing firms caught on and put the nutritional information on the front already?

 

[Perknose]

Those remotes with the huge number keys were a great idea too.

Yeee-haaa, FUCK ergonomics and targeted, intelligent design and bury the only unvarnished facts on the package in fine print on the side, those are the timeless principles of unapologetic, troglodyte stupidity by design you proudly stand for, eh?

YEEEEEEEE-HAAAAAAAA!

 

[nageov3t]

If that's so then why haven't marketing firms caught on and put the nutritional information on the front already?

because marketers want busy parents who aren't paying attention to buy their kids Sugar Frosted Marshmallow O's.

I get the argument that this might be ineffective, but even if it is, I don't really see the downside to making nutritional information easier to read for those who do pay attention to it.

 

[ShawnD1]

the FDA mandates minimum calories but no maximum, so there's basically no reason to, say, serve a salad rather than french fries.

You need to ask why a government funded lunch program exists in the first place. This is there under the assumption that a lot of kids have crackhead parents who don't properly feed their kids. They don't get a salad because a salad is basically empty; it has no calories. It will not raise the kid's blood sugar enough to allow him to learn, and yes your learning is severely affected by low blood sugar (being hungry).

The goal of the lunch program is to feed kids so they can learn better. This means lots of calories to keep the body moving, lots of fat to get those hormones going, lots of protein to build strong bodies, lots of carbs to feed that brain. Forcing fat lazy people to lose weight is not the original goal of the lunch program.


edit:
Ironically, the idea for starting a school lunch program in Edmonton, Canada was shot down because it's too socialist. We have free healthcare and extremely cheap university and even we think school lunches are going too far. lol

 

[herkulease]

because marketers want busy parents who aren't paying attention to buy their kids Sugar Frosted Marshmallow O's.

I get the argument that this might be ineffective, but even if it is, I don't really see the downside to making nutritional information easier to read for those who do pay attention to it.

I don't think the aim is at the people who pay attention. They are after the ones who don't care and are too lazy to turn the box. If you do pay attention to the labels then you already turn it around anyways. Seems to me this is just politicians wanting to have something so they can show they are actually working.

 

[theeedude]

Could be information overload there.
I think people are just going to ignore the labels if they are right in their face all the time. I usually like to see what manufacturer claims is in box and then compare it with what labeling says. BTW, Safeway bran muffin's top ingredient is sugar It just drives me crazy how much sugar or syrup is in everything. There are so many products that I wouldn't mind eating in moderation if I didn't have to eat a glass full of sugar with each one.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

because marketers want busy parents who aren't paying attention to buy their kids Sugar Frosted Marshmallow O's.

I get the argument that this might be ineffective, but even if it is, I don't really see the downside to making nutritional information easier to read for those who do pay attention to it.

Parents should pay attention to what they are feeding their kids in the first place. If that means turning a package around to get that information I fail to see why that's so difficult.

Whatever though. Let's cater to the lowest common demoninator. If that's what it takes to get a minor percentage to pay attention, so be it. Such pursuits have become a standard for a society where personal responsibility is slowly becoming a thing of the past.

 

[Nemesis 1]

You can't make this stuff up...




http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959

Because it is so hard to turn around a package.

I am so glad government has all of this money to invent pointless regulations.

Oh no! I need government to save me from myself. I am too lazy to turn a package around

Maybe if the Obama administration spent 1/2 the time it spends on all of these pointless project on the economy, unemployment would be under 10%.

Great news . My wife and son are in printing business. Most the weak players are out. This is great news . Tho I won't tell wife this she think OH no more overtime. She puts in 15 hours O/T a week as it is. But I need more racing money . LOL. Actually many believe it was my advice that kept them in business . Keep up with tech or die and no unions.

 

[nageov3t]

normalized serving sizes would be pretty awesome too... hate feeling like I have to break out a calculator to compare 1 cup of X cereal versus 3/4 cup of Y cereal versus 2/3 cup of Z.

 

[fallout man]

I'm so upset about this, that I'm moving to Kenya.

I'm going to seek out and marry a mid-western US-born woman while there.

I'm going to impregnate her, and we will move to a fringe US state where birth records are easily falsified (Alaska, Hawaii) just after our child is born. Then, we shall falsify birth records.

I shall then wait patiently for 40 years, while thoroughly studying Alinsky, Rev. Wright, and other agitators.

At this point, the trap is set. My boy shall be elected by an electoral college majority to serve as president of this God-forsaken land, and reign supreme over his detractors, mandating detailed calorie listings on the FRONT of packagings.