Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-24-2016, 07:27 PM
 
Location: Mountain Home, ID
1,956 posts, read 3,635,568 times
Reputation: 2435

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi View Post
1. The information is on the package, but in many cases the quantity currently described as one serving is ridiculous. For example, who makes a bologna sandwich with 1 slice of bologna? If 11 of your buddies stopped at your place for a quick lunch, would a package of 12 slices of bologna serve all 12 of you? You know it wouldn't. So the labels are not reasonable. What's wrong with making them more reasonable?

2. For those who don't care what or how much they eat, no, larger print won't do a thing for them. But for those of us who do read labels, it would be nice to be able to actually see the numbers.

There, I answered your questions. Now answer mine -- what is the problem with 1 and 2? How does it harm anyone?
This. I bought a big individually-wrapped cookie at the local gas station a few days ago and looked at the nutritional information. There were 2.5 servings in the package. Who eats 35% of a cookie?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-24-2016, 08:52 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,117,467 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
Yes t does "mean so much" but obviously not you that you were wrong....it does to me, that was my point.
Whatever. I see how quick you are to call someone a liar.

Quote:
What does this even mean?
That you had to physically move your fingers and hand to put a link up. Yet you seem to be ignorant on what is included on your own link.


Quote:
The food label is already simplified, you eat this much, you have this many calories.....will that change if they make the food label bigger?
They are simplifying the simplified and making them bigger.... If only you had read your link....


Quote:
Glad you agree.
Cool.

Quote:
Then use my link to prove me wrong.....it's not that long of a link....
How about you just read your own link?


Quote:
And yes...it is or was the ONLY link....
More mountains and ant hills with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 09:05 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,731,596 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkm370 View Post
In the future...the average American will be too fat to function at the rate were going
Think there's a connection between spending the most on healthcare and 75% US adults being overweight- obese?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 09:07 PM
 
2,630 posts, read 1,455,239 times
Reputation: 3595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesster View Post
This. I bought a big individually-wrapped cookie at the local gas station a few days ago and looked at the nutritional information. There were 2.5 servings in the package. Who eats 35% of a cookie?
Haven't you ever heard of "leave some for another day?"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Barrington
63,919 posts, read 46,731,596 times
Reputation: 20674
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
A fat population has always been the result of wealth and prosperity of the population.

Eating high on the hog and eating crumbs, is a social status.
This info seems to contradict that hypothesis:

Fattest Countries in the World
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 09:16 PM
 
Location: ATX-HOU
10,216 posts, read 8,117,467 times
Reputation: 2037
Quote:
Originally Posted by BentBow View Post
A fat population has always been the result of wealth and prosperity of the population.

Eating high on the hog and eating crumbs, is a social status.
Man, you truly were born in the wrong era.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 09:17 PM
 
Location: Secure Bunker
5,461 posts, read 3,234,540 times
Reputation: 5269
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
WASHINGTON — Major changes to nutrition labels on food packages became final on Friday, with calorie counts now shown in large type and portion sizes that reflect how much Americans actually eat.

It was the first significant redrawing of the nutrition information on food labels since the federal government started requiring them in the early 1990s. Those labels were based on eating habits and nutrition data from the 1970s and ’80s and before portion sizes expanded significantly. Federal health officials argued that the changes were needed to bring labels into step with the reality of the modern American diet.

Finally! It's about time we tackled the tough problems in this country?

What's next? A 970 page report on how to make military spec fruit cake?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 09:39 PM
 
17,468 posts, read 12,936,339 times
Reputation: 6764
Quote:
Originally Posted by No_Recess View Post
Here's my Warning Label:

Warning: Taking the advice from a fictional entity that can't run an efficient business, is trillions of dollars in debt, kills/cages people for no reason whatsoever may be hazardous to your health.

Slap that on the side of a box of Eggo Waffles.
I would rather enjoy my Eggo Waffle without the thought of government intrusion!


Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg View Post
Ever buy a bag of potato chips and learn that the nutritional info is based on a serving size of six chips? I'm pretty good at doing arithmetic in my head, but that is so absurd as to make the nutritional labeling pointless.

The more I know about the food I eat, the better.
I have to agree here......once one reads this it is easy to realize why one can't lose weight eating a whole bag of chips a few times a week.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2016, 10:24 AM
 
29,548 posts, read 9,716,744 times
Reputation: 3471
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee View Post
You have a hard time comprehending....

Your bumble bee is exactly why when I respond I break out each quote......if you cannot understand a sentence, then maybe you should break out what you don't understand and then request another response.

However, you have not done that, or just do not have the ability to understand how to do that, even as easy as it is....

So what people like you do is blast an entire post (no matter the length), and just say "you're wrong" without providing anything specific (please reference your "bumble reference" for proof of what I say....
I've tried every way I know how to get you to clarify your comments, and with each attempt, it seems the water just gets more muddy...

I started this thread. I posted an example of what our government has attempted to do with regard to informing people about the contents of food packaging, later I also provided the example of similar product information requirements for new car sales in America. I think these are worthwhile efforts on the part of our government, though obviously not perfect in every regard.

You?

Others have made clear their heartburn over these efforts and/or changes that seems largely born from a lack of interest in what that information and/or packaging contains. Okay, doesn't matter to some, but clearly matters to others, right? Quite enough others for all the other reasons provided by other comments in these threads that also make just as much sense, all depending on whether education and concern about nutrition matters to you or not.

Should matter to everyone, but obviously it doesn't. That's no excuse or argument for government not to do right by the people who care.

That's all, in a nutshell.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2016, 03:33 PM
 
46,278 posts, read 27,093,964 times
Reputation: 11126
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe View Post
I've tried every way I know how to get you to clarify your comments, and with each attempt, it seems the water just gets more muddy...

I started this thread. I posted an example of what our government has attempted to do with regard to informing people about the contents of food packaging, later I also provided the example of similar product information requirements for new car sales in America. I think these are worthwhile efforts on the part of our government, though obviously not perfect in every regard.

You?

Others have made clear their heartburn over these efforts and/or changes that seems largely born from a lack of interest in what that information and/or packaging contains. Okay, doesn't matter to some, but clearly matters to others, right? Quite enough others for all the other reasons provided by other comments in these threads that also make just as much sense, all depending on whether education and concern about nutrition matters to you or not.

Should matter to everyone, but obviously it doesn't. That's no excuse or argument for government not to do right by the people who care.

That's all, in a nutshell.
Thanks for proving my point.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:40 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top