PDA

View Full Version : Help petition FDA to change good labeling!!



synthetic
12-07-2009, 12:19 PM
Hopefully I can get a sticky. THis is not jsut for transfats, but consider sugars too...

Basically I would like the FDA to standardize Nutrition values per 100g as opposed to the food producer setting serving size, which they do to be able to list their product as trans fat free or sugar free, which is most likely not true, as you can simply check the ingredients for hydrogenated-fractionated-interserfied-modified oils

Who the hell eats a "serving size anyways" ? a Serving size might be set to 1 cracker, which can be set as 0g TF thanks to FDA labeling laws that say under .5g is tranfat free, but let say has .49g per serving. you eat 12. you ate 6g of transfat ... Just as good as eating French Fries, yet you where illusion-ed into thinking you ate healthy.

ALso I would like everything down to .XX singificant digints instead of rounding to the nearest gram.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/FIGHT-the-trans-FAT-Help-Change-FDA-food-labeling-regulations/195560457524

twm
12-07-2009, 12:23 PM
0.XX sig dig is not plausible, but standardizing per 100g is a great idea. a step towards the metric system is a step in the right direction

synthetic
12-07-2009, 12:39 PM
0.XX sig dig is not plausible, but standardizing per 100g is a great idea. a step towards the metric system is a step in the right direction

European Union they go to .XX digits.

twm
12-07-2009, 12:57 PM
European Union they go to .XX digits.

so what? how are you going to tell me that that measurement is accurate?

if I take 100g of raisin bran, and I get half as many raisins as per the measurement on the label, will it still be accurate? no. the point is that measurements in food are based on an average intended mix. sure, you can carry the decimal to the microgram if you want, but the difference is neither material nor accurate when it comes to tracking your food intake.

Example.. I buy a pack of hot dogs that has 1g trans fat per 100g. Each hot dog is 25g. Therefore each hot dog has .25g of trans fat. This would only be a problem when the "serving size" is larger than the degree of precision you want. Solution? Make the serving size per 1000g. Then there would be 10g of trans fat per 1000. The individual food unit is the same tho.

synthetic
12-07-2009, 02:47 PM
so what? how are you going to tell me that that measurement is accurate?

if I take 100g of raisin bran, and I get half as many raisins as per the measurement on the label, will it still be accurate? no. the point is that measurements in food are based on an average intended mix. sure, you can carry the decimal to the microgram if you want, but the difference is neither material nor accurate when it comes to tracking your food intake.

Example.. I buy a pack of hot dogs that has 1g trans fat per 100g. Each hot dog is 25g. Therefore each hot dog has .25g of trans fat. This would only be a problem when the "serving size" is larger than the degree of precision you want. Solution? Make the serving size per 1000g. Then there would be 10g of trans fat per 1000. The individual food unit is the same tho.


the point with 100g labels is for comparison reasons
look at tortillas/wraps, deemed as healthy - pro low carb because they dont have transfat, but the serving sizes are usually set to 25-30g, it follows the same peanut butter argument, and for sure we eat more than a serving size of one tortilla.

also @ 100g standard we can do better comparisons for buying our whey protein

as unset size would state
Brand X / Y
serving size: 33g / 50g
fat: 2g / 2g
carb 8g / 12g
pro 20g / 30g

an anti carb freak would say to Brand Y oh nooo too many carbs im gonna die, but at 100g

brand X / Y
fat 6 / 4
carb 24 / 24
prot 60 / 60

same amount of carbs if you where aiming for 60g dosage of protein, but a negative now is you have 2 extra grams of unwanted fat

yea it comes down to education, but to educate the vast lazy population is not easy. THe concern is with parents feeding children, thinking they are giving their child something healthy thanks to clever marketing servings sizes, but the kid is plumping up for some reason outside of food

IronDiggy
12-07-2009, 02:55 PM
That would be awesome. I was pointing out to a co-worker who thought his bottle iced tea(I think it was that) had less sugar than a can of pop. He didn't even read the serving size to see that the serving size on most pop bottles is 250ml where as cans of pop are the full 355ml. I would fully support the .XX labeling as well as standard serving sizes.

Cmanuel
12-07-2009, 04:32 PM
It's well known that the FDA is looking to revise the nutrition labeling and education act (NLEA) from 1990. Its dated and has some issues. But a little facebook page is going to do NOTHING against the mass efforts of trade organizations. Trust me on this one. They are the reason that .5g or less of trans fat per serving doesn't have to be declared on the label. You would be better to sign a petition by a much larger group/website.

This would be a much more effective petition page (http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#submitComment?R=0900006480a58fea)

Just some fun info. The NLEA of 1990 actually has pretty damn detailed regulation (http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/GuidanceDocuments/FoodLabelingNutrition/FoodLabelingGuide/ucm064904.htm#serve)s on what constitutes a serving size... It's just not enforced well unfortunately.

synthetic
12-07-2009, 04:48 PM
http://www.bantransfats.org/ was an online petition and in fact did get the FDA to start the requirement of listing transfats on nutritional labels.

;)

Cmanuel
12-07-2009, 04:54 PM
http://www.bantransfats.org/ was an online petition and in fact did get the FDA to start the requirement of listing transfats on nutritional labels.

;)

Well then post a link in your original post. All I saw was a facebook page with about 18 members.

If you want to get people to help, spread the word using a single click link that will take them to a petition form.

synthetic
12-07-2009, 05:10 PM
everyone should have facebook.. even elected officials do. Whats great it should cache on google index

twm
12-07-2009, 05:59 PM
the point with 100g labels is for comparison reasons
look at tortillas/wraps, deemed as healthy - pro low carb because they dont have transfat, but the serving sizes are usually set to 25-30g, it follows the same peanut butter argument, and for sure we eat more than a serving size of one tortilla.

also @ 100g standard we can do better comparisons for buying our whey protein

as unset size would state
Brand X / Y
serving size: 33g / 50g
fat: 2g / 2g
carb 8g / 12g
pro 20g / 30g

an anti carb freak would say to Brand Y oh nooo too many carbs im gonna die, but at 100g

brand X / Y
fat 6 / 4
carb 24 / 24
prot 60 / 60

same amount of carbs if you where aiming for 60g dosage of protein, but a negative now is you have 2 extra grams of unwanted fat

yea it comes down to education, but to educate the vast lazy population is not easy. THe concern is with parents feeding children, thinking they are giving their child something healthy thanks to clever marketing servings sizes, but the kid is plumping up for some reason outside of food

i know what you mean and agree for the most part. carrying 0.01 at per 100g is the same as 1 per 1000g.. thats all i was trying to say.

synthetic
12-12-2009, 10:48 AM
i know what you mean and agree for the most part. carrying 0.01 at per 100g is the same as 1 per 1000g.. thats all i was trying to say.

100 would be better since it is what europe is. so if a european travels here, no worries of conversion, and american traveling to europe no worries, basicly a ncie world wide standard. in general the person would eat an amount of food near to 100g anyways in a meal.

Cmanuel
12-12-2009, 11:07 AM
100 would be better since it is what europe is. so if a european travels here, no worries of conversion, and american traveling to europe no worries, basicly a ncie world wide standard. in general the person would eat an amount of food near to 100g anyways in a meal.

Yeah im sure that would work, since america is so open to having world standards :bang:

Fuzzy
12-12-2009, 07:32 PM
They dont list per 100 gram in the US?

That's bizarre, in Australia we have the serving and 100 gram side by side.

Cmanuel
12-13-2009, 11:08 AM
They dont list per 100 gram in the US?

That's bizarre, in Australia we have the serving and 100 gram side by side.

Yeah and you guys are probably using the SI system for units. We are a bit resistant to change lol