• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

We are all idiotic children: FDA to put nutrition labels on FRONT of food packaging

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToxicAdam

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

This would mean that the front of a Wheaties box, for example, would display not only the smiling face of a famous athlete but also declare how many calories from fat are in each serving.

“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.
Click to expand...


What enrages me is the condescending bullshit statement at the end. It's not that you think people are "too busy", you think people are too stupid. The essence of liberal nanny care mentality.
 
People are so fat and the government doesn't know what to do about it. We tried personal responsibility and that failed.
 
Won't help. People just don't give a shit about eating healthy, it's not that it's too much effort or something.
 
This is a good thing. I always forget to check the food label, and I can't be bothered to remind myself. This is a good thing for consumers and will promote more healthy life styles.

EDIT: I was just being retarded/obnoxious before, but actually, this doesn't sound that bad. When I'm in the grocery store I usually take a couple of products and compare them, but this way I could just glance at the labels while they're still on the shelf. I don't really read the health labels anyway, so this doesn't affect me too much either way.
 
Could be worse, you could be a smoker and spend all day staring at some advanced tumour or excised lungs every time you want a cigarette.

That's a point, why don't they put a picture on the food of weeping boils and bedsores trapped between folds of fatty skin? Or leathery inner-thigh skin? Or just a really fat naked guy?
 
"We are all idiotic children."

You know, the other day I was walking to the bank and in front of McDonald's there were people protesting the use of the Ronald McDonald character in advertising. Rather than take responsibility for their own parenting, rather than tell their kids "No," these people thought it best to blame Ronald McDonald for their fat children.

Personal responsibility is in short supply these days.

SmokyDave said:
Could be worse, you could be a smoker and spend all day staring at some advanced tumour or excised lungs every time you want a cigarette.
Click to expand...

Buy a metal case. I know it doesn't sound possible, but it makes smoking look even cooler.
 
SmokyDave said:
Could be worse, you could be a smoker and spend all day staring at some advanced tumour or excised lungs every time you want a cigarette.

That's a point, why don't they put a picture on the food of weeping boils and bedsores trapped between folds of fatty skin? Or leathery inner-thigh skin? Or just a really fat naked guy?
Click to expand...

Photos of really really fat naked people on the MacDonald's windows :lol
 
Maleficence said:
Wait, TA, you don't think people are too stupid? I certainly do, most people are too stupid.
Click to expand...

I can already tell you are a lifelong liberal. That's the kind of thinking that fuels the ideology.


No I don't think the average person is retarded. I think the average person is competent. I think there are really ignorant people out there, but we shouldn't be gearing society to protect them every step of the way. It's akin to forcing advertisers to write "don't try this at home" when they show someone jumping off a bridge in a car.
 
Definitely a good thing.

When you get to the point that you actually care about what you put into your body, finding that info easier is always good.

I've been irritated more than once checking 6 sides of a friggin package looking for the label. Now I can glance or pick it straight from the shelf and see it.

As a plus, maybe this will cause them to produce better products.
 
Peronthious said:
What's stopping them from turning the packaging around?
Click to expand...


If people are too stupid to find out where the label is on a box, then they are too stupid to comprehend what those listings mean and how they pertain to a healthy diet.
 
Ripclawe said:
people are busy! It would take them a second to do that and that is a second they just can't spare!
Click to expand...

No, I mean the grocer or wherever the food is. Larger boxes you could have an inset nutritional guide, but for smaller things it'd take up the whole "front", leaving the producers to put flashy stuff on the back. Your typical grocery store employee stocking the shelves probably won't know the difference.

Edit: I may have misunderstood. What the FDA is planning sounds similar to what many cereal boxes and other foods already have, that being a small box or section on the front with the calorie count, serving size, and % DV.
 
SmokyDave said:
That's a point, why don't they put a picture on the food of weeping boils and bedsores trapped between folds of fatty skin? Or leathery inner-thigh skin? Or just a really fat naked guy?
Click to expand...
So fat, they censor themselves with their hanging flab.
 
They have done this in the uk for a long time now, I think it works
when i see saturated fats lit up in red for just 1 sausage roll and i think what fat looks like i pretty much avoid it lol
 
I doubt this move will help at all. Likewise, I can't see why anyone would care or be effected by this unless they worked as a product designer for one of the effected companies.

Overall, a sum change of zero.
 
Doytch said:
Won't help. People just don't give a shit about eating healthy, it's not that it's too much effort or something.
Click to expand...
This.

The ones who make the effort to eat healthily are fine with making the effort to turn the packaging around. The rest wouldn't care even if you made the nutrition figures cover the whole of the packaging and glow with fancy LEDs.
 
ToxicAdam said:
I can already tell you are a lifelong liberal. That's the kind of thinking that fuels the ideology.


No I don't think the average person is retarded. I think the average person is competent. I think there are really ignorant people out there, but we shouldn't be gearing society to protect them every step of the way. It's akin to forcing advertisers to write "don't try this at home" when they show someone jumping off a bridge in a car.
Click to expand...

Most intelligent people tend to be. :P

I kid I kid, mostly.

Anyway, there's no reason to assume they're doing this because people are stupid. Even if they are, what's wrong with doing it just because even a smalkl percentage of the population are stupid? I mean it doesn't in any way harm those that are intelligent, in faact it pretty much helps everyone that actually cares. You seem to be taking a very antagonistic approach to a very simple, and ultimately harmless situation.
 
Peronthious said:
What's stopping them from turning the packaging around?
Click to expand...

This. While we are at it, we should put the name, pictures, and everything else on the back of the box where it belongs. Then everyone can have the pleasure of turning around boxes to figure out what's inside of them.

Anyone against this is obviously lazy or stupid.
 
ToxicAdam said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article7029709.ece
Click to expand...

That isn't really a direct critique of the whathe UK government does to include labelling on packaging, that just commenting on a general trend thats pretty much the same in all Western socities. I personally like the labels on the front, it means it's clear without having to go huning for it on the back.

Also, people don't give a crap at the moment, but eventually they will. The Government should carry on working to inform people about their diets because it really does put a strain ont he whole health care system, and their lives as well. Putting it on the front is a good idea thought because then you can tell on the shelf, if you want to.

Well played people randomly pulling out the lberal state card. It's a great argument.
Furthermore keep playing the personal responsibility/paternalism card. That's a fresh one. I'm sure those with liberal views are terrified of how to intergrate that into their beliefs. People have had responsiblity for a while and yet they continue to eat and drink more then is healthy, which is certainly their choice but it's a poor one to make.
 
This is already done on many foods in UK/Ireland (and probably most of Europe). It is actually a good idea if you are looking for a quick way to gauge info

sausages12xs2.jpg


Tesco sausages taste shit BTW
 
This is one of those changes that won't make a damn difference and is primarily intended to make government officials appear more proactive than they actually are.

Personally, I have nothing against Obama, but some of his cabinet choices were downright stupid.
 
eh...I don't care either way, TBH. But it'd be nice not having to turn nearly every package over to read the nutritional info.
 
I can't see the problem? I don't know why you're shaking your daily mail around till you're blue in the face? when all it means is less space to put shitty colour schemes and grinning celebrities, children, or whatever on the box.
 
Keyser Soze said:
This is already done on many foods in UK/Ireland (and probably most of Europe).
Click to expand...
That sort of labeling is done in the United States for some foods. I think what is being suggested in the article as a requirement by the FDA is something far more comprehensive than that label.
 
Doytch said:
Won't help. People just don't give a shit about eating healthy, it's not that it's too much effort or something.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have to agree with this. Especially after watching that Jamie Oliver show.
 
Won't the end effect of this just have the manufacturer decrease the serving size so it looks better at a quick glance?

In the Tesco sausage image posted above, what if the serving size was one grilled sausage, or even half? How many "busy shoppers" would interpolate how many they would actually eat and adjust the nutritional information accordingly? Awful.
 
Keyser Soze said:
This is already done on many foods in UK/Ireland (and probably most of Europe). It is actually a good idea if you are looking for a quick way to gauge info

sausages12xs2.jpg


Tesco sausages taste shit BTW
Click to expand...

This looks similar to what France had when I was there, but I can actually make sense of this one. In france, I couldn't make sense of their system O _o
 
Of all the things to rant about, this one is fairly petty.

It's a good idea in the same vein that pricing labels per unit are a good idea: it makes it easier to compare nutritional information just as the price/unit labels make it easier to compare price information.

Is it insulting? No. I'm a computer science major and a math minor and I don't find it insulting at all that grocery stores provide per unit prices next to the gross price. I could just as easily whip out my cell phone or do a little mental math, but the last thing I want to waste my time doing is standing around in a grocery store. Having the information front and center, just like the unit price labels is a convenience for those that care. Don't want the info? DON'T FUCKING LOOK. Does anyone seriously find it insulting or condescending that grocery stores provide price per unit labels? Does it make you feel like someone thinks you're mathematically challenged? Are you really that sensitive?

Likewise, government regulations for standardized labeling on new cars is meant as a convenience. Sure, you could make the argument that if consumers cared, they can go look up the MPG numbers in a separate brochure or online somewhere, but having that data front and center (as the largest numbers on the label itself) provides a convenience to consumers that care and can aid in making a more educated decision by providing easy access to the nutrition information.

Given the state of nutrition in the US and how it affects long term healthcare costs (think hypertension, for example), upfront labeling, particularly highlighting elements like sodium, cholesterol, and saturated fats, can help consumers more easily compare and make educated decisions IF THEY WANT TO.
 
CharlieDigital said:
Of all the things to rant about, this one is fairly petty.

It's a good idea in the same vein that pricing labels per unit are a good idea: it makes it easier to compare nutritional information just as the price/unit labels make it easier to compare price information.

Is it insulting? No. I'm a computer science major and a math minor and I don't find it insulting at all that grocery provide per unit prices next to the gross price. I could just as easily whip out my cell phone or do a little mental math, but the last thing I want to waste my time doing is standing around in a grocery store. Having the information front and center, just like the unit price labels is a convenience for those that care. Don't want the info? DON'T FUCKING LOOK.

Likewise, government regulations for standardized labeling on new cars is meant as a convenience. Sure, you could make the argument that if consumers cared, they can go look up the MPG numbers in a separate brochure or online somewhere, but having that data front and center (as the largest numbers on the label itself) provides a convenience to consumers that care and can aid in making a more educated decision by providing easy access to the nutrition information.

Given the state of nutrition in the US and how it affects long term healthcare costs (think hypertension, for example), upfront labeling, particularly highlighting elements like sodium, cholesterol, and saturated fats, can help consumers more easily compare and make educated decisions IF THEY WANT TO.
Click to expand...

I can already tell you are a lifelong liberal. That's the kind of thinking that fuels the ideology.
 
Will make me a lazier person since I won't have to pick up packages and turn them around to check nutrition info. FDA is contributing to obesity in America!
 
Doytch said:
Won't help. People just don't give a shit about eating healthy, it's not that it's too much effort or something.
Click to expand...

This is completely wrong. People like the idea of eating healthy but they don't for various reasons. They might think they are too busy and won't do more than warm something up, they are intimidated by cooking thinking it takes a lot of effort and they are bombarded with advertisements from places like McDonald's about cheap food despite the fact that cooking your own food is almost always cheaper. My roomate does nothing but eat packaged food that can be microwaved or heated in an oven, it's not that he doesn't care it's that he doesn't know how to do otherwise.
 
Keyser Soze said:
This is already done on many foods in UK/Ireland (and probably most of Europe). It is actually a good idea if you are looking for a quick way to gauge info

sausages12xs2.jpg
Click to expand...
B-B-B-B-UT TEH GOVERNMENT REGULATION!!!

Let's be real real here, who gives a shit.
 
ToxicAdam said:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63959



What enrages me is the condescending bullshit statement at the end. It's not that you think people are "too busy", you think people are too stupid. The essence of liberal nanny care mentality.
Click to expand...

I can't believe that no one in the thread has pointed out that your argument is a complete non sequitur. Please, explain to me how having the same information on the front of the package instead of the back is in any way remotely related to the intelligence of the person using the information.

If there is any ulterior motive, it is to combat indifference and apathy, not lack of intelligence.
 
Personally, I'd like to see some changes that make the existing labels a bit easier for people to understand.

I don't know how many times I've seen this:

Serving Size: 8 ounces
Number of servings: Varies

Stuff like this pisses me off.
 
If they're hoping this is going to prevent obesity, I'm afraid to say that it will, almost assuredly, do absolutely nothing.

People who care enough to watch what they eat already read the nutrition labels - obesity is, in many cases, a direct consequence of not caring or watching what you eat. It's not ignorance, so much, as a combination of 1) Cost (cheap food is generally bad for you) 2) Convenience (Fast food is fast) 3) Apathy/Laziness (People either don't give a shit or are too lazy to do anything about it).

My two cents.
 
Somnid said:
This is completely wrong.
Click to expand...

Not only is it wrong, his statement is utterly stupid to state that "nobody" cares about eating healthy.

Plenty of people care about their nutritional intake (go look at any of the workout threads or weight loss threads on GAF - a gaming forum) and for those that do, this will be an added convenience just as the government regulations that brought about standardized nutritional and ingredient labeling in the first place became a big boon for those that cared about their nutritional intake. (And I will personally beat down the first idiotic retard that wants to complain about how the government shouldn't have required standardized nutritional and ingredients labeling using some stupid ass argument that "It's insulting my intelligence for the government to think that I can't go look up the information myself!")

BlueWord said:
If they're hoping this is going to prevent obesity, I'm afraid to say that it will, almost assuredly, do absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

It will not prevent obesity. No simple act like this, in and of itself, can prevent obesity. However, for those that do care about their nutritional intake, this is an added convenience much in the same way that having standardized nutritional and ingredient labeling was when it was first introduced. At the end of the day, it aids the consumer in making an educated choice. Whether the make the right choice is up to the individual consumer. The key word being "educated"; the key to really solving the obesity and health issues is education both in terms of healthy eating and healthy lifestyles.
 
Guevara said:
People are so fat and the government doesn't know what to do about it. We tried personal responsibility and that failed.
Click to expand...
they could start by removing all the goddamn sweetener from all of our foods.
 
They do it in the UK and its great. Many times i've picked up something seemingly innocent only to see theres far too many calories or way too high a salt level and eat something much better.
 
Keyser Soze said:
This is already done on many foods in UK/Ireland (and probably most of Europe). It is actually a good idea if you are looking for a quick way to gauge info

sausages12xs2.jpg


Tesco sausages taste shit BTW
Click to expand...
2 sausages is such a stingy portion.
 
CharlieDigital said:
Given the state of nutrition in the US and how it affects long term healthcare costs (think hypertension, for example), upfront labeling, particularly highlighting elements like sodium, cholesterol, and saturated fats, can help consumers more easily compare and make educated decisions IF THEY WANT TO.
Click to expand...

This is a good idea, but I don't think it should be on the packaging of the products themselves - it's bad for business and, frankly, everything kills you. I mean, should we really be putting a warning label for carcinogens on everything we eat? I'd say there only needs to be a notice if the content is above a certain level; Ice Cream, for instance, could be labelled for it's high saturated fat content.

However, the explanation for how these things affect you should be better communicated through other means. There needs to be a big push to communicate exactly how to eat healthy, and not just throw out a bunch of big ideas like "eat healthy" and "exercise". Obviously, both of these things are great ideas, but all of us know that guy who goes to the gym to do some heavy lifting to lose weight - in other words, the idea is getting through, but people don't understand it.
 
itsinmyveins said:
It was a joke.

I pretty much agree with everything you said, though.
Click to expand...


You didn't expect a liberal to understand humor, did you?

I can't believe that no one in the thread has pointed out that your argument is a complete non sequitur. Please, explain to me how having the same information on the front of the package instead of the back is in any way remotely related to the intelligence of the person using the information.
Click to expand...

Why move it at all? Is there really a national epidemic of people losing valuable seconds in grocery stores because they can't see the labels? Has there been a great outcry among the citizens for this?
 
While even I think NYC is getting out of hand with some of its Be Healthy Or Die measures, their requirement for franchises to prominently display calories next to their food items is really eye-opening.

Seeing a cookie with a lunch's worth of calories, or a "value meal" soaring into quadruple digits definitely gives you pause about your food choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

One Third of Children Online are drawing moustaches on their faces to fool online age checks in the UK
Social 
10
319
bitbydeath replied
Where we all at? Post yer photos
41
213
Sticks replied
  • Locked
Are we allowed to discuss Greenland?
3
403
ChuckeRearmed replied
Doctor Who put out to tender by BBC
2 3
117
1K
WoJ replied
YouTube Expands Automatic AI Video Detection And Warning Labels
News 
4
1K
diffusionx replied
Top Bottom