[Cincinatus' Wife]

Politicians are putting the squeeze on businesses, they're looking for campaign cash and tax revenue - they don't give a damn about our health.

[RaceBannon]

If they put her pictureon the box, we would all eat less.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

 

[aruanan]

nutrition label information is qualified by fine print that reads, "Values are based on a 2,000-calorie diet" implying that 2,000 calories is the universal daily nutritional requirement.

No, it doesn't. You have to have some kind of standard and then let people figure out their own requirements based on the standard. It's impossible to have on a nutrition label a custom-tailored estimate for each and every person based on their weight, metabolism, age, and physical activity. The fact is that too many people are too ignorant to extrapolate from a standard to their own condition, and if they weren't too stupid, they just wouldn't care because food tastes too good. These are problems that will never be solved by nutritional labeling.

[aruanan]

Adding to the uncertainty, say the researchers, "no previous study has addressed the impact of caloric intake, physical activity and body weight (all three considered together) on CVD risk."

This really isn't true. Stephen Blair at The Cooper Institute in Dallas has been studying the effects of physical exercise on CVD in the context of obesity or lack of it. They had already come to the conclusion that, in men, sufficient physical activity offset several risk factors for CVD (obesity, type II diabetes, smoking, HBP) even in men considered at risk due to percentage body fat. Overweight men with physical exercise were much less likely to die from CVD than lean, inactive men.

The implication is that it isn't being fat that will kill you but being fat and inactive and that you're more likely to be inactive if you're fat and fat if you're inactive.

[samtheman]

I don't see the big deal here. I've worked in factory-labelling operations. Once you create the new templates, it cost as much to print out the new packaging as it did the old.

And as a matter of fact, I'm one of those people who does read the calorie count on foods. I like to keep my eye on it.

It won't cost that much. It's information. Information is good.

I have to go against the consensus here and say: I agree with labelling food.

And remember, labels actually PROTECT the manufacturer. A lot of frivolous tobacco suits either never got filed or were thrown out precisely BECAUSE of those warning labels on packs of cigarettes.

So tell me how many calories is in my next order of fish'n'chips. It won't run you out of business... and I appreciate the info... and it might keep you out of court.