jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (11 posts)

New Food Label Rating System discussed

  1. Stacie L profile image88
    Stacie Lposted 6 years ago

    'Energy Star' rating system could come to food labels
    Updated: Oct 20, 2011 4:27 PM CDT

    The government wants to clarify information on food labels. A panel of independent experts with the Institute of Medicine has come up with a new system that could help us better understand what we are buying and eating.

    Cruising through the grocery store yields a dizzying array of food choices. To decipher company claims about fat and sugar contents, the Institute of Medicine has proposed a standardized icon system that would go right on the front label of food packaging.

    It's intended to help consumers make quick and healthy choices.
    http://www.wthr.com/story/15743939/ener … ood-labels
    people will eat what they want regardless of the labels..which are deceptive as is

    "What we're really looking at is the equivalent of an Energy Star system for foods and beverages," said Ellen Wartella, Northwestern University.

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Would't work.  Icons only indicate a system which is designed by those who..well decide what they mean.  It really only clarifies their new system, nothing more.  I believe companies need to state exactly what is in their package - item, type, amount, process %, value in exact mgs not % as related to a 2000 calorie diet, and so on.

  2. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Sure, why not make labels better.  Calorie labeling helped me make some better choices.  Donut=410 calories, jeepers!

    1. Stacie L profile image88
      Stacie Lposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      yeah, it's scary to see the actual calorie count,provided it's honest...wink

  3. MikeNV profile image75
    MikeNVposted 6 years ago

    It won't matter.  Will be nice for some but food companies will figure a way around it by renaming the ingredients just like they do with MSG.

    And most people don't read labels now.

    Look at Cigarettes for Example... you can put dead people on the packs and people will still smoke.

    Calories are far less important than what is in the products.  A calories is nothing more than a measure of the energy contained with in a food. Calories are neither good nor bad.  People don't get that.  Nutrition is NOT about Calories.

    Food manufacturers will use any new law as a way to justify price increases.

    Having said that the more disclosure as to what is in a product the better for people who actually do read labels.

  4. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 6 years ago

    Having information on labels is better than not having it.  Then at least the people who do read labels can make informed choices.  I find informative labels, ingredient lists and amounts etc very helpful.

  5. GmaGoldie profile image81
    GmaGoldieposted 5 years ago

    This is critical to our health and something the food companies COULD do on their own.

    Watching television, I was thrilled to see many large corporations taking the triple bottom line approach and supporting healthy measures.

    This should be done a voluntary basis. We, the consumer, should demand more information.

    I am dismayed when one product has vitamins in it and the other doesn't - reading the labels and the sodium content is important.

    I was thrilled to see low sodium soy sauce, low sodium soups, etc... One of my frozen dinners had 40% of my salt in one serving.

    Ammonia in beef is a sad thing and something someone should do something about. Processing chemicals must be disclosed - I need to know when I have the possibility of consuming ammonia - I want the choice to buy better food - without ammonia - wish the label stated no ammonia used in processing,

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Good point, Goldie.  In addition to actual food ingredients, full disclosure of all chemical processes - in fact all processes regardless of whether or not chemicals are used - should be mandatory.  Many organic and natural food companies do disclose their processes.

  6. psycheskinner profile image80
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    You seem to be saying that it should be both voluntary and compulsory?

  7. GmaGoldie profile image81
    GmaGoldieposted 5 years ago

    I think the food industry is so concentrated and has so much power, it is essentially a monopoly - they have the power within their own companies to do these items on a voluntary basis.

    I find it inefficient for government to make it mandatory. I do believe it is an excellent discussion and IF it becomes mandatory via the government, it is a good thing but why are we allowing the government to intervene?

    I believe strongly the next generation of companies MUST include triple bottom line and show the consumer, they are working for them. The new generation of mega giants CAN act proactively rather than be subjected to a "government mandate".

    1. couturepopcafe profile image59
      couturepopcafeposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      People need to educate themselves about what they're reading.  Boycott companies.  Just don't buy the stuff.