First lady Mic e Obama Friday unveiled the country's first update to nutrition labels in more than two decades — a move that helps cement her campaign to encourage Americans to eat healthier.
The new Nutrition Facts labels, which will take effect in two years and appear on billions of food packages, for the first time require food companies to list how much sugar they add to their products and suggest a limit for how much added sugar people should consume — two changes vehemently opposed by many food companies.
The impact of the rule is difficult to overstate — labels on products from candy bars and sodas to crackers and cereal, at every point of sale across America, must be overhauled at an estimated cost of $2 billion. And those labels will remind Americans every time they open a package of how much added sugar they are consuming.
"Very soon, very soon you will no longer need a microscope, a calculator or a degree in nutrition to figure out whether the food you're buying is actually good for our kids," Obama said today as she unveiled the new label at a health summit in Washington. "That's a phenomenal achievement."
The administration’s determination to stand its ground on added sugar labeling amid fierce opposition from business groups is a sign the first lady intends to bolster her already substantive food policy legacy in her final months in the East Wing. While the media has often painted Obama’s Let’s Move! campaign as soft and uncontroversial, the first lady has brought enormous pressure to bear on groups like the processed food industry and notched a series of wins related to what Americans eat. Those include the administration’s effort to all but ban trans fats, mandate more fruits and vegetables as well as less sugar, salt and fat for the meals served to 30 million school kids, and use government financing to get grocery stores into poor communities that lacked access to healthy food.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...#ixzz49E65c9ly
The problem is that for the most part, the people that will read the labels are already aware of what it means to eat healthy and are already avoiding eating too much sugar, fat, etc.
The ones that aren't educated enough in this aspect aren't going to know or care what the new labeling means.
those changes make no sense
She changed the portions to a more generous portion size for fat Americans
Sugar? As in only that which comes from sugar cane? What about agave, honey, maple syrup? Nutritional labels already list CARBOHYDRATES which is what is important. More healthy fats, less carbohydrates. She'd be more helpful if they left off the grains off the My Plate and turned the food pyramid upside down. Low carbs (mostly vegetables and some fruit), protein (meat, fish, eggs, beans) and HIGH fat - coconut oil, olive oil, avocados, olives, whole fat milk products - that's my recipe for good nutrition. No need for grains - especially rice which is laced with arsenic.
After reading the linked article, she's making serving size larger and it's true added sugar is processed the same way as naturally occurring sugars - no need to list them separately or at all.
Two billion. No big deal to fat ass Mic e.
I really like the changes. Serving sizes are too often preposterously small. For example, I eat a normal size bag of popcorn and it's technically 3 serving sizes therefore the label is off by a factor of 3 (although I can use simple multiplication to figure it out of course). Also, regardless of how the added sugar is processed, I want to know how much sugar the manufacturer is adding unnecessarily so that I know whether it's even possible for me to find a similar alternative with less sugar.
If clowns like you were totally running the show the past few decades then we probably wouldn't even have labels which are very useful.
Mic e is a pretty buff dude, tbh
A face only a mother can love. And Obama.Mic e is a pretty buff dude, tbh
I actually dig the fined tune muscles. They look hot as on a chick. But you have to have the full package to go along with the body.
Not bad amirite?
Last edited by Reck; 05-21-2016 at 06:29 AM.
Little too lean, tbh. Not ugly, thoA face only a mother can love. And Obama.
I actually dig the fined tune muscles. They look hot as on a chick. But you have to have the full package to go along with the body.
Not bad amirite?
You voting Ivanka Trump 2024, bro? Keep America Great
She should fix her over(under) byte - her face is so so but her body is very good - tall and lean.Mic e is a pretty buff dude, tbh
I like Mic e. I'd hit it.
Her influence as First Lady hasn't been as disastrous as Shillary.
It's unfortunate to see this post from a woman. Perhaps you should post a picture of yourself so we can point out what's wrong with your face.
Only in America can you find people who are outraged about having the food they're eating accurately labeled.
Willful ignorance is a virtue for many in this country.
what's unfortunate about it? people have physical appearances, is it really wrong to describe them? it's fine to discuss somebody's mental ability, accomplishments, but for some reason not their appearance? it's not as though rmt judged her based on her appearance (that would be misplaced)
when I get type 2 diabetes, I don't want to have any idea it's coming
Funny thing is fat white America will basically read Mic e Obama's words everytime they stuff their faces
Slavery has gone full circle
She didn't describe her appearance, she said she should fix it.
It seems like context clues would indicate to most people that it was the first part of her statement I was responding to.
It seems like context clues would indicate to most people that it was the first part of her statement I was responding to, but if you want to continue to knit pick this tangential topic for a few more pages I guess I'm game.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
