Crosspost from our neighbors on /ck/ & /fit/
nyti.ms/1XFkL2p
1. The serving sizes now reflect what people currently eat — rather than whatever the companies decide seems reasonable. So serving sizes that were equivalent to only a few chips might now reflect the whole package.
2. The total calorie count is now highlighted in huge letters rather than being in the same type size as the other nutrition information.
3. Added sugars, a completely new category is important given recent updates to the dietary guidelines urging Americans to cut down on sugars that come from processed foods such as cakes and cookies. Added sugars are measured in both grams and as a percent daily value.
4. For some food products that could be consumed in multiple sittings — or in one single swoop if you really have the munchies — there will now be two columns to indicate the per-serving and per-package calorie and nutrition information that will save you from doing some math. This will include items like that pint of Ben & Jerry’s. Packages or containers that are between one and two servings — such as 20-ounce bottles of sodas — will now be labeled as one serving.
5. Sodium and dietary fiber. The percent daily values for sodium, dietary fiber and vitamin D will change for many foods based on the new 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans that call for up to 28 grams a day (up from 25).
6. In the past, labels only had the percent daily values for vitamin D and potassium, but they’ll now also show the gram amount.
7. Vitamins A and C will no longer be required on labels, since deficiencies of these vitamins are rare nowadays.
8. Based on research that shows the type of fat is more important than the amount, the “Calories from Fat” line will disappear. However, “Total Fat,” and the subcategories “Saturated Fat,” and “Trans Fat” will still be required.
Most manufacturers will be required to have the new labels in place by July 26, 2018.
>>74641151
AMERICA YES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz9OJyyJrBQ
>>74641151
why not just tax the fat people instead for being fat? Why do companies have to make this shit more obvious when hardly anyone will ever look at it?
What's the point of this?
>>74641253
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T_obaO46Bo
http://www.techinsider.io/king-curtis-says-bacon-is-good-for-me-in-2015-2015-9
>>74641151
This is good, I know people are sometimes annoyed by this big stupid looking label but compare it to Japan for example where labeling is optional and they don't bother to label half the foods so you don't know if your convenience store bread is 300 calories or 800 because you have to guess whether the fruity filling is made of real fruit or colored pig fat
>>74641385
world is too pc for a fat tax, u know that ausaus
>>74641387
>not wanting to make deals
>>74641151
I am ok with this, makes things easier for people who actually check calorie counts on the lable
>>74641452
Can't we at least make it so obesity is not considered a """"""disease""""""" or that the expenses they create for the government are reduced and the fat pieces of shit pay for it instead?
>>74641385
a fat tax would cut obesity rates in half within the first month or two.
it would be so damn effective that it will never, ever happen because someone's feelings would get hurt.
>>74641385
Lots of people glance at it but don't really look because it might require some mental math if it's a cup of ice cream and the serving size is 1/16th of a cup and the calorie count is in small print.
But if some slightly fat woman picks it up and sees a big text 1600 CALORIES she might be shocked into putting it down and rethinking her diet.
It is maybe only 1 person in 10 who would do that but it does make a difference
People do look at these things, women especially
Fat people don't look at the underside or back of a package when they go to eat 10 Oreos and drink a liter of coke.
If excuses were calories fat people would be twice as fat. No label is ever going to fix this.
>>74641604
I don't know anyone who looks at the back of a package much at all. They don't care, instead they just don't eat fucking heaps of something. Why is it the companies responsibility to make fat people labels which they won't use?
>>74641652
this desu
>>74641151
>like fat fucks will accept responsibility or even aknowledge calories in calories out
>>74641253
>Good labels now required to show actual sugar content
What are you pissy about?
>>74641387
He is actually a very well spoken kid, seems pretty intelligent to be honest.
>>74641593
Is the cost of hurting peoples feelings so high that it's not worth introducing it though? I can't imagine that they'd do anything substantial.
>>74641794
typical american can't read
>>74641652
You ever see the screenshots from the tv show where the fat person estimates they eat 1800 calories a day and the food Doctor person points out that their big bowl of cereal with milk and yogurt and ice cream and 4 bananas and 2 cups of blueberries is 5,000 calories by itself? And the person almost goes catatonic from shock?
That is who this is directed at. Many, many people are in denial and avoid doing the math or connecting the dots in their heads, this is meant to be a hammer to break through that sheet of glass covering the "realize what the fuck I am doing" button.
>>74642028
that's a good analogy but the hammer is too """heavy""" for fat people to lift because they're lazy. I don't think it will make any change.
>>74641881
I read the whole thing OP posted. Are you capable of articulating an entite coherent thought or do you just spouting off memes in real life too?
>>74642142
My post meant nothing.
I love you please don't be angry
>>74641537
i agree with relabeling, but thats leftist territority see: relabeling of homosex as NOT a mental disorder
>>74641151
>serving sizes
This is retarded.
We use nutrition facts per 100g or 100ml. That way you can easily compare between different foods to see how calorie dense they are (for example).
If you have to use ounces or whatever do that, but make it consistent. Trying to wring out comparative data with the serving size bullshit is overcomplicated and there's no reason for it.
>>74642237
>>74642378
This. Serving size is ridiculous
>>74641385
>hardly anyone will ever look at it?
I read the label of pretty much any food I don't buy regularly. It's amazing how large of a difference there can be between two seemingly identical products. No one is forced to look at the labels but for those who choose to be informed, they are great to have.
>>74642028
This, we can say those fat fucks are stupid all we want, which they are, but there is nothing wrong with more transparency for the sake of ignorant fucks.
>>74642560
It's good to have but won't help fix the obesity problem
>>74641724
Most of the things on the back of the packet are meaningless to the average citizen. Most people don't even know what potassium does, they just know that bananas are a good source of it because Homer Simpson told them so.
>>74641593
>within the first month or two.
The human body can only burn 290kj/kg of stored fat and that's the best case scenario where the amount of calories, macros, and work are perfectly balanced. Over a year? Maybe with proper motivation but in thirty to sixty days? Not going to happen even with the threat of execution.
>>74642636
It's a tool. Individuals can choose to use it or not. Without the tool, no one gets to choose. Not sure why you're on such a LOLbertarian rage about having tools to make an informed choice about the foods they eat.
>>74642897
I'm not any rant senpai just making comentos on why it's not going to do much good despite it being aimed at reducing obesity
I'm all for getting more info on the back of packets and shit
>>74641253
The Phantom
Exterior like Fisheggs
>>74641151
Thank god.
As a fit guy this will just make things a lot easier. Removing calories from fat is a little silly but it's a very easy math calculation anyway.
