ADVERTISEMENT

Does America Need More Aggressive Food Labels?

Would more aggressive food warning labels be a good idea in the US?

  • Total voters
    27
What Would Jesus Do?

What Would Jesus Do?

HR King
Nov 28, 2010
84,759
38,686
113
Maryland

Latin America labels ultra-processed foods. Will the US follow?​


Latin America is leading the world in a movement to print nutritional warning labels on the fronts of food packages. Currently, the labels warn when a food product exceeds a consumer’s daily recommended value of any “nutrient of concern” – namely, sugar, salt or saturated fat (some countries have added trans fats, artificial sweeteners and caffeine). But research led by scientists across the continent is increasingly pointing towards another factor consumers may want to consider: how processed a food is.

Ultra-processed foods make up an increasingly large share of the average Latin American consumer’s diet. These industrially formulated products, which are often high in fats, starches, sugars and additives (like flavorings, colorings and preservatives), were first named and studied by Brazilian researchers in the early 2000s. Today, many Latin Americans get 20% to 30% of their daily calories from ultra-processed products (in the United States, the average is even higher – upwards of 60%).
more here

www.theguardian.com

Latin America labels ultra-processed foods. Will the US follow?

In 2010, Mexico led the way, followed by Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Uruguay, Argentina and Colombia
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: desihawk
  • Like
Reactions: InsaneHawkJJP, SI_NYC, THE_DEVIL and 9 others
No, for several reasons.

First, the simple reality is that we are a country of 300 million people and of continental scale, and feeding 300 million people poses significant production and, equally as important, distribution challenges. While it might be nice to have less processed foods, the fact is that we need them at the population level. But we are not France, or Italy, where we can produce, distribute, and eat just those things that are from the 20 square mile radius of the village in which we live, which is historically cut off from other places by mountains or rivers.

Second, do you actually read and follow all of the warnings on televised drug ads? Do you read all of the "Prescription Information" on the back of a print ad? Of course not. Does the "surgeon general's warning" on cigarette packages dissuade you, or is it other health messaging in the broader market. History would suggest the latter. Because more information rapidly becomes too much information, and is blithely ignored.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InsaneHawkJJP, Mayland and TennNole17
Aardvark86 said:
Second, do you actually read and follow all of the warnings on televised drug ads? Do you read all of the "Prescription Information" on the back of a print ad? Of course not.
Click to expand...
To me, that's an argument FOR better, more aggressive labeling, not against. Get away from the confusing, obfuscating "fine print" approach to warnings.

I feel the same way about the policies we have to agree to on line, and in other arenas.

I wonder if we can get AI to read those lengthy, fine print contracts to find the gotchas we need to know about. But that's a different thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
Finance85 said:
How many people actually read food labels now?

Obesity is getting out of control in the US.
Click to expand...
i'm actually betting that number is going to drop a bit in the foreseeable future. Not from Ozempic or Jardiance, but rather from the post-covid "work from home" world. For my part, the absolute hardest thing about maintaining decent nutrition is eating at work. It is orders of magnitude easier to control both nutritional content and portion size at home.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL, CaboKP and jasonrann
I voted probably. I think there definitely needs to be some sort of actual education on healthy eating instead of relying on marketing to inform us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pink shizzle
What Would Jesus Do? said:
To me, that's an argument FOR better, more aggressive labeling, not against. Get away from the confusing, obfuscating "fine print" approach to warnings.

I feel the same way about the policies we have to agree to on line, and in other arenas.

I wonder if we can get AI to read those lengthy, fine print contracts to find the gotchas we need to know about. But that's a different thread.
Click to expand...
The problem is, once you start with warnings, they become disclaimers. Of liability. And if you're going to disclaim one thing, you don't want the negative inference of not having disclaimed another or made a less-than-full disclosure. Indeed, many state AGs and now senators and vice presidents have built their careers on that, because it's easy pickin's. But the reality remains, from a consumer perspective, warning labels are nothing more than white noise.

A fun case in point. In the not so old days, contracts with data exchange provisions usually had indemnities for "data breaches". After a few people got nicked, those provisions became indemnities for "data breaches caused by a breach of the terms of a data security agreement." Now, in response to that, data security agreements have become so burdensome as to be impossible to not breach. ...oh, and it's AI that's writing that bullshit.
 
Last edited:
people know all the food in the middle aisle of the grocery store are bad, they don't need labels to tell them that

people know fast food is bad for them too, but it doesn't stop them for ordering it....a lot!
 
  • Like
Reactions: pink shizzle
Given how math-challenged our population has become, I'd prefer tighter controls on the unit of measurement's conversion on the label to the correct percentage for recommended daily intake. Currently, the controls aren't tight and convert to a % of the daily maximum intake.

So that 5% you see for sodium on the side of the package is actually around 8-9% of your recommended daily amount and almost 65% of your daily minimum intake.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
I doubt it would make much sense in what people buy and consume.

I'm all for it, just doubting many people would change how they eat.
 
Aardvark86 said:
i'm actually betting that number is going to drop a bit in the foreseeable future. Not from Ozempic or Jardiance, but rather from the post-covid "work from home" world. For my part, the absolute hardest thing about maintaining decent nutrition is eating at work. It is orders of magnitude easier to control both nutritional content and portion size at home.
Click to expand...
No disrespect, but I think there is zero chance this happens. Most people are lazy and stupid, not a great combination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
I'd rather the FDA concentrate on banning additives to our food that aren't allowed in Europe.

www.cbsnews.com

U.S. food additives banned in Europe: Expert says what Americans eat is "almost certainly" making them sick

One expert says most Americans likely don't realize how many additives they're eating that European regulators shun — and it's "almost certainly" making them sick.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
This is a better answer. Since the 90’s when food labels were significantly improved, we have only gotten more obese and less healthy. The label does jack.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
Buy a coke is a foreign country and there is a big ass label basically saying this shit is bad for you… do not drink it.
 
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
I'd rather the FDA concentrate on banning additives to our food that aren't allowed in Europe.

www.cbsnews.com

U.S. food additives banned in Europe: Expert says what Americans eat is "almost certainly" making them sick

One expert says most Americans likely don't realize how many additives they're eating that European regulators shun — and it's "almost certainly" making them sick.
www.cbsnews.com www.cbsnews.com
Click to expand...
This Up Here GIF by Chord Overstreet


As a parent, I really screwed up by letting my son drink a bottle of Orange Fanta. He lost his ever love'n mind after drinking it. #neveragain

INGREDIENTS: CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM BENZOATE (TO PROTECT TASTE), NATURAL FLAVORS, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SODIUM POLYPHOSPHATES, GLYCEROL ESTER OF ROSIN, YELLOW 6, RED 40.

Note: The American version of Fanta does not contain orange juice, while the recipe outside the US does. In Mexico, Fanta is made with sugar, while the US version uses high fructose corn syrup.

For the doubters: Although there is a need for more studies to determine the effects of sugar on ADHD symptoms, most research suggests that there is a link between food dyes and hyperactivity. This is especially true of the widely studied food dyes, including red no. 3, red dye 40, and yellow no 6.
 
  • Like
Reactions: binsfeldcyhawk2
alaskanseminole said:
This Up Here GIF by Chord Overstreet


As a parent, I really screwed up by letting my son drink a bottle of Orange Fanta. He lost his ever love'n mind after drinking it. #neveragain

INGREDIENTS: CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM BENZOATE (TO PROTECT TASTE), NATURAL FLAVORS, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SODIUM POLYPHOSPHATES, GLYCEROL ESTER OF ROSIN, YELLOW 6, RED 40.

Note: The American version of Fanta does not contain orange juice, while the recipe outside the US does. In Mexico, Fanta is made with sugar, while the US version uses high fructose corn syrup.

For the doubters: Although there is a need for more studies to determine the effects of sugar on ADHD symptoms, most research suggests that there is a link between food dyes and hyperactivity. This is especially true of the widely studied food dyes, including red no. 3, red dye 40, and yellow no.
Click to expand...
between this and the coke post, i just want to note that fanta was one of the things that kept me going in the summer of 1985 in the soviet union, cause i sure as hell wasn't going to drink what they called orange soda
 
  • Like
Reactions: alaskanseminole
Aardvark86 said:
between this and the coke post, i just want to note that fanta was one of the things that kept me going in the summer of 1985 in the soviet union, cause i sure as hell wasn't going to drink what they called orange soda
Click to expand...
Mid shifts in Alaska were fueled by the Nectar or the Gods--Mt Dew!

danny mcbride mt dew GIF by ADWEEK
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aardvark86
alaskanseminole said:
This Up Here GIF by Chord Overstreet


As a parent, I really screwed up by letting my son drink a bottle of Orange Fanta. He lost his ever love'n mind after drinking it. #neveragain

INGREDIENTS: CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM BENZOATE (TO PROTECT TASTE), NATURAL FLAVORS, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SODIUM POLYPHOSPHATES, GLYCEROL ESTER OF ROSIN, YELLOW 6, RED 40.

Note: The American version of Fanta does not contain orange juice, while the recipe outside the US does. In Mexico, Fanta is made with sugar, while the US version uses high fructose corn syrup.

For the doubters: Although there is a need for more studies to determine the effects of sugar on ADHD symptoms, most research suggests that there is a link between food dyes and hyperactivity. This is especially true of the widely studied food dyes, including red no. 3, red dye 40, and yellow no 6.
Click to expand...
What's nuts is many if not most of this banned chemicals are dyes. No need for them to be in there like a preservative.

There are dyes added to medicine...like Tylenol. Red and blue capsules. Cough syrup etc...basically damned near every thing.

Just to enhance the appearance. Crazy.
 
binsfeldcyhawk2 said:
What's nuts is many if not most of this banned chemicals are dyes. No need for them to be in there like a preservative.

There are dyes added to medicine...like Tylenol. Red and blue capsules. Cough syrup etc...basically damned near every thing.

Just to enhance the appearance. Crazy.
Click to expand...
Yup. It ALL needs to go.
 
I believe Canada and Mexico neutered us a decade ago on some labeling the country of origin of meat. We can’t know what’s going in the meat or where it’s even from.
 
Aardvark86 said:
No, for several reasons.

First, the simple reality is that we are a country of 300 million people and of continental scale, and feeding 300 million people poses significant production and, equally as important, distribution challenges. While it might be nice to have less processed foods, the fact is that we need them at the population level. But we are not France, or Italy, where we can produce, distribute, and eat just those things that are from the 20 square mile radius of the village in which we live, which is historically cut off from other places by mountains or rivers.

Second, do you actually read and follow all of the warnings on televised drug ads? Do you read all of the "Prescription Information" on the back of a print ad? Of course not. Does the "surgeon general's warning" on cigarette packages dissuade you, or is it other health messaging in the broader market. History would suggest the latter. Because more information rapidly becomes too much information, and is blithely ignored.
Click to expand...
You just showed the problem. We need to change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: THE_DEVIL
It's all pretty simple. Eat things that don't require a label. Eat things you grow. Eat organic as much as possible.

Stay away from things that are addictive. I've lost a taste for sugar for example. Stay away from gluten (most breads). Stay away from corn. Stay away from anything genetically modified. Stay away from heavily processed meat and anything with hormones added.

Some of you pay more attention to fuel and oil for your car than you do for your body.

If you are fat it is almost always due to what you eat. If you have medical issues it is almost always what you eat.

and... stay away from MSG. Don't eat out very much.
 
alaskanseminole said:
This Up Here GIF by Chord Overstreet


As a parent, I really screwed up by letting my son drink a bottle of Orange Fanta. He lost his ever love'n mind after drinking it. #neveragain

INGREDIENTS: CARBONATED WATER, HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, CITRIC ACID, SODIUM BENZOATE (TO PROTECT TASTE), NATURAL FLAVORS, MODIFIED FOOD STARCH, SODIUM POLYPHOSPHATES, GLYCEROL ESTER OF ROSIN, YELLOW 6, RED 40.

Note: The American version of Fanta does not contain orange juice, while the recipe outside the US does. In Mexico, Fanta is made with sugar, while the US version uses high fructose corn syrup.

For the doubters: Although there is a need for more studies to determine the effects of sugar on ADHD symptoms, most research suggests that there is a link between food dyes and hyperactivity. This is especially true of the widely studied food dyes, including red no. 3, red dye 40, and yellow no 6.
Click to expand...
Interesting, CA is looking to ban some of this stuff and some of the very same people in this thread lost their minds.
 
Aardvark86 said:
No, for several reasons.

First, the simple reality is that we are a country of 300 million people and of continental scale, and feeding 300 million people poses significant production and, equally as important, distribution challenges. While it might be nice to have less processed foods, the fact is that we need them at the population level. But we are not France, or Italy, where we can produce, distribute, and eat just those things that are from the 20 square mile radius of the village in which we live, which is historically cut off from other places by mountains or rivers.

Second, do you actually read and follow all of the warnings on televised drug ads? Do you read all of the "Prescription Information" on the back of a print ad? Of course not. Does the "surgeon general's warning" on cigarette packages dissuade you, or is it other health messaging in the broader market. History would suggest the latter. Because more information rapidly becomes too much information, and is blithely ignored.
Click to expand...
Let me guess, you work at Conagra or another type of food company that uses a lot of crappy ingredients in it's 'food' products.

The question wasn't suggesting to ban the foods, it was to put a label stating what's in the food. I'm not sure why anyone would be against that unless they are in the business of supplying crappy food to people.
 
Absolutely. I think kids should be informed of all the dangers when it comes to sodas or smoking or abortions or gender transitions or candy bars, etc.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Flie
Finance85 said:
How many people actually read food labels now?

Obesity is getting out of control in the US.
Click to expand...
Why would you not want to be educated about what you are eating. People not reading or knowing how to read food labels is why companies are getting away with the ultra processed, toxic foods that Americans can't get enough of.
 
Aardvark86 said:
No, for several reasons.

First, the simple reality is that we are a country of 300 million people and of continental scale, and feeding 300 million people poses significant production and, equally as important, distribution challenges. While it might be nice to have less processed foods, the fact is that we need them at the population level. But we are not France, or Italy, where we can produce, distribute, and eat just those things that are from the 20 square mile radius of the village in which we live, which is historically cut off from other places by mountains or rivers.

Second, do you actually read and follow all of the warnings on televised drug ads? Do you read all of the "Prescription Information" on the back of a print ad? Of course not. Does the "surgeon general's warning" on cigarette packages dissuade you, or is it other health messaging in the broader market. History would suggest the latter. Because more information rapidly becomes too much information, and is blithely ignored.
Click to expand...
If farmers actually used farmland appropriately we would have no problems growing food for the country. Instead, it is mostly used to raise livestock and grow the food to feed the livestock. The meat industry has their hooks into the farmers, FDA and politicians.
 
speak34 said:
If farmers actually used farmland appropriately we would have no problems growing food for the country. Instead, it is mostly used to raise livestock and grow the food to feed the livestock. The meat industry has their hooks into the farmers, FDA and politicians.
Click to expand...
More Iowa corn goes to ethanol than to livestock. Your point is well taken though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: speak34
Definitely yes but they should be more like those on tobacco products. I'm thinking this would be about right -
"Warning, the product you are about to consume contains harmful chemicals and toxins not intended for human consumption. However they do make it look shiny, last longer, and stimulate your taste buds, and that's what really matters. Enjoy a lifetime of obesity and chronic illness."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cigaretteman

Panera is calling for a federal crackdown on the eggs in its competitors’ breakfast sandwiches

Replies
33
Views
743
Off Topic
HawkFantastic
HawkFantastic
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back