Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Maine middle school to offer birth controlDNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's MelungeonsAfter poisonings, PScreening finds skin cancer: Does it save lives?Pregnant women warned about antidepressantMore kids eating detergent packs, docs reportBorder town hospitals straddle care and costsItaly doctors save baby with smallest artificial heartObesity not always tied to higher heart riskToo many people get angioplasties, study suggests
Leave a Comment:
We need labels that state if it is a GMO, pesticide/herbicide/bactericide or any other cide added to the plant for growth etc.
If the FDA wants to control every aspect of foods consumed we have the right to know what measures are used to produce the food.
Foods do not have to be stripped, altered or enhanced to only be accepted by regulators to be eaten.
Perhaps we should label GMO foods like they do in Europe, but that goes along with educating the public as to the benefits and potential risks, and dispel all the myths. It is a costly change to implement, there is little evidence that consumers base their choices off label/warnings in those countries where GM labeling is required, not to mention that spreading misinformed hysteria is not going to fix any problems, only cause more.
Pesticidies/herbicides/bacteriocide are not added to any living thing for growth, because by definition of the root "-cide" means to kill...i.e. homocide. Also, chemical applications are not and cannot ever be "genetic modifications." Those two ideas don't fit in the same sentence. In addition, non-GM crops actually require MORE pesticide and herbicide to protect the crop, not less. This is the exact type of misinformation we need to correct in America before tampering with labeling requirements.
Next up they'll have labels on foods which exceed certain nutritional thresholds. The label will say "Caution! Eating too much of this with poor exercise will make you FAT!"
I think that's a very real issue with labeling. Without educating the public what the label means, the system falls apart. So a three-star product is "healtheir" than a two-star, but in what portion size? Cooked via what methods? My cottage cheese lunch is "healtheir" than a big mac unless I am hungry that day and eat the whole 16oz. cottage cheese container.
Because it's really just too difficult to pick up and item and turn it over to read the nutrition facts now?
When you have to work two jobs just to pay the bills, there ain't enough TIME to stand in the aisle reading the "nutrition facts".
This is crazy. The people who care what they're eating already have a good idea of what's healthy and what's not. For the small number of items they're unsure of, they'll check the label. Putting the label on the front isn't going to change anything.
A rating system based on calories per serving is useless. The serving size is usually determined by the number of calories the manufacturer wants in each serving. It is of absolutely no use. A rating system based on calorie density versus nutritional content would be much more useful.
It should be based on the entire package, if you want to split it up, divide. Most people eat a whole can of soup or whole 20oz beverage.
You can only do so much. How are they going to compare a can of Coke to a can of Pepsi? Also, it's about calories AND nutritional content.
If someone can't take the time to read the ingredient label on the back, they are not going to notice the marks on the front--or even the price they are paying for it.
I have noticed that Walmarts Great Value brand is (not all items, but what I buy) better in terms of calories or nutrients than the national brands--plus, less expensive--I'm not sure why that is because usually price correlates with quality.
Just read the labels, and eat under 2,000 calories a day. It's tough, but when you start eating similar things most days, it becomes easier--plus, you save so much more on food when you are not eating like a pig.
If you only feed your body calories, your body has nothing to build and repair with. Nutrients and vitamins are what really matter the most. You get hungry to satisfy the body's need for vitamins and calories. Unfortunately most (if not all) of the processed foods are seriously devoid of vitamins. So, I say vitamin, calorie, GMO, and toxic content is all important to label for healthier bodies.
Both GMO and pesticide content should be labeled. People don't realize what junk they are really eating. I buy organic because I don't trust companies to be honest about '100% Natural' and things like that.
Easiest solution. Stop buying your food from a store. Grow your own food or purchase from a farmer's market. Best way to be sure of what your getting. I realize not everyone has the option to do that though which is unfortunate. I honestly don't do either but if the FDA keeps "regulating" my food I may start looking into it.
I don't know why this is so hard. I find that the healthiest foods out there are the ones that don't really need a label to tell you what's in them. Whole foods, one ingredient.
I'd hate to look at those new labels and stare in shock at what the government considers "healthy". More wheat and low-fat? Yeah...because that's working soooo well.
I agree with you, Demon, this Energy Star-like rating thing is useless because our government is clueless (or worse, catering to corporate agriculture) about what is good for us. They think we should be eating grains like there's no tomorrow when, in fact, they are completely unnecessary in a human diet and are greatly contributing to the obesity epidemic. All the low-fat products out there are garbage for you as well. A supermarket chain (Hanniford) in my area is already utilizing an Energy Star-like system and a lot of food that they give 3 stars to I wouldn't eat.
I would love to know how some grain that is going to turn into stored fat (because that's what grains do whole or not, although whole is less evil) that eventually (if I eat the amount the USDA recommends) will make me obese, making my heart work a lot harder for the same activities I can do relatively effortlessly now is supposed to be "heart healthy"?
With the Government involved it will be skewed as usual. The consumer just has to be better educated by themselves. Also the food producers need their feet held to the fire instead of going to government to get around the consumer.
I recently read that 2 out of 3 meals are now eaten outside the home. If true, labels in the store don't mean squat.
One problem is food is to convenient. A food joint every block. Many people stop & grab a between meal snack. (If you call a 1500 calorie sandwich a snack.)
Another problem is the lack of physical labor in today's society. An hour a day or every other day in the gym doesn't compensate for 8 hours of physical Labor everyday.
When I was younger & healthier, I took in 5000 calories plus a day to maintain my weight. Twice today's recommended intake. On occasion when I did gain weight, it was in the form of muscle. A benefit of added muscle if you really enjoy eating is that you burn more calories with less physical activity.
On a lighter side. Unbeknown to the patient, Nurses use to try to guess your weight when you went in for a physical. They set the scale to be within 5#'s of your weight +or- 5#'s. They took a certain pride in this. After a couple of physicals I became aware of this. In my case they always started at 150#. Being aware of this, I would immediately reach up & set it to 200#'s with them saying no way. My weight would usually be between 199 & 205.
Had I been on the ball, I would have conned them into a bet where they would subtract a dollar from my bill for every pound they under guessed my weight. At that time a physical cost about $50. Muscle is much more compact by weight. It's like comparing a 1# brick with a 1# feather pillow. The pillow will take up much more space even if you compress it.
We need to know all the genetically modified proteins they are putting in our food!
These have only been allowed since the 1990's and cancer has risen as much! It is the INVISIBLE additives we need to worry about. Why else are somany people and children sick with food allergies! None of these "natural" chemicals were in our food before then. Europe and other countries don't allow it NOW! It's all about money and we are losing!