5 ms·

I'm curious what a better nutrition labeling system would look like. I think each country has a different system. It would stand to reason that at least a few h

I'm curious what a better nutrition labeling system would look like. I think each country has a different system. It would stand to reason that at least a few have something better than the US system.

vishaldpatel 17y ago
Sugar = fat. A lot of food says 0% fat, when the ultimate result of all that sugar is essentially fat.
- wvenable 17y ago
  Sugar != fat in terms of the content of food. If something has zero fat but 400 calories, then it's still bad for you but in a different way. Either way, it's clearly labeled. The problem is that people don't know how to interpret the labels. Better education would help with that. Weight watchers, for example, has their points formula which boils down the calories, fat, and fiber values into a single number that is easier to understand. Some food packages even include the WW points number -- but it wouldn't be very accurate or scientific to mandate that sort of thing.
  - albemuth 17y ago
    I can't recall any other sources other than that Robert Lustig talk, but from what I've understood you gain more fat by metabolizing sugar than by actually consuming fat.
    - wvenable 17y ago
      I understand that's the case as well. A lot of low-carb diets, such at Atkins, allow you to eat as much fat as you want and you'll still lose weight. Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. The food that contains 0% fat doesn't contain any fat. That's actually useful information. If people think that 0% fat foods are automatically good for them, that's an education problem not a labeling problem.
      - drewr 17y ago
        Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. As cwan mentioned earlier, read Taubes.
    - larsr 17y ago
      That does not appear to be true. For instance, here is Walter Willett, chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health: From many kinds of studies conducted over years, we are quite confident now that a calorie from fat will cause a similar amount of weight gain as a calorie from carbohydrate. There are some interesting questions about whether eating carbohydrate calories versus fat calories will make you eat more calories, but based on what you put into your mouth, it's pretty clear that the source of the calories is really not important. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.ht...
      - wvenable 17y ago
        Wouldn't the calories label on the food include both calories from both fat and carbs? So this is all moot to the discussion at hand.
      - chipsy 17y ago
        That article is talking "carbs vs. fat." Lustig is talking "sugar vs. everything else," and the key to the sugar-obesity link isn't in calorie quantities, but in how it affects future appetite and preferences. After drinking a soda, you will eat _more_ on average than someone on an empty stomach, even though you've just downed ~45 grams of sugar. It's the same reason why you can enjoy terrible bar food once you're drunk.
  - vishaldpatel 17y ago
    Yes, sugar indeed != fat. When you do eat sugar - it is your body's first choice for energy. This means that any fat you eat gets stored for later consumption... which will be never cuz most of us eat way too much sugar anyway.
DaniFong 17y ago
I have a startup idea surrounding this that I think could be killer. I'm working full-time (on another startup) but I'm applying to YC anyway because I think it would be an easy hack with huge benefits and the possibility of making a lot of wealth. If you're interested I'm looking for a cofounder -- email me at daniellefong at daniellefong dot com.
- rdouble 17y ago
  Have you seen Joel Fuhrman's ANDI rating system? It's being used at Whole Foods. http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Whats-the-nutrient-density-of-your-food-Get-the-ANDI-score http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2...
  - jrockway 17y ago
    What I get out of these "boiled-down" systems is that I should just eat a vitamin pill and some cardboard. Low sugar, low fat, high nutrients.
    - rdouble 17y ago
      Go for it.
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      There might be a lot you're missing. Nutrition is hideously complex, but since we're evolved to eat whole foods and there are a lot of bioactive enzymes and or compounds that aren't well known or in vitamin pills you could be missing out on something crucial.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        That would be my point.
        DaniFong 17y ago
henrikschroder 17y ago
Where I am, all nutrition labels contain the amounts per 100g/100ml (for comparison with other items) and per "serving" (for knowing how much you typically get). The problem though is that serving sizes typically don't reflect how much you actually eat, especially for food that's bad for you. A serving of chips is usually a fistful, a serving of chocolate is not the entire bar, etc. Overall the system is ok, but there's room for improvement. On the other hand, nutrition labels are such a small problem, the big problem is that people eat too fucking much, and no label in the world are going to stop them from doing so.

vishaldpatel 17y ago

Sugar = fat. A lot of food says 0% fat, when the ultimate result of all that sugar is essentially fat.

wvenable 17y ago
Sugar != fat in terms of the content of food. If something has zero fat but 400 calories, then it's still bad for you but in a different way. Either way, it's clearly labeled. The problem is that people don't know how to interpret the labels. Better education would help with that. Weight watchers, for example, has their points formula which boils down the calories, fat, and fiber values into a single number that is easier to understand. Some food packages even include the WW points number -- but it wouldn't be very accurate or scientific to mandate that sort of thing.
- albemuth 17y ago
  I can't recall any other sources other than that Robert Lustig talk, but from what I've understood you gain more fat by metabolizing sugar than by actually consuming fat.
  - wvenable 17y ago
    I understand that's the case as well. A lot of low-carb diets, such at Atkins, allow you to eat as much fat as you want and you'll still lose weight. Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. The food that contains 0% fat doesn't contain any fat. That's actually useful information. If people think that 0% fat foods are automatically good for them, that's an education problem not a labeling problem.
    - drewr 17y ago
      Dietary fat is bad for your cardiovascular system, though. As cwan mentioned earlier, read Taubes.
  - larsr 17y ago
    That does not appear to be true. For instance, here is Walter Willett, chair of the department of nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health: From many kinds of studies conducted over years, we are quite confident now that a calorie from fat will cause a similar amount of weight gain as a calorie from carbohydrate. There are some interesting questions about whether eating carbohydrate calories versus fat calories will make you eat more calories, but based on what you put into your mouth, it's pretty clear that the source of the calories is really not important. http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.html http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1822118,00.ht...
    - wvenable 17y ago
      Wouldn't the calories label on the food include both calories from both fat and carbs? So this is all moot to the discussion at hand.
    - chipsy 17y ago
      That article is talking "carbs vs. fat." Lustig is talking "sugar vs. everything else," and the key to the sugar-obesity link isn't in calorie quantities, but in how it affects future appetite and preferences. After drinking a soda, you will eat _more_ on average than someone on an empty stomach, even though you've just downed ~45 grams of sugar. It's the same reason why you can enjoy terrible bar food once you're drunk.
- vishaldpatel 17y ago
  Yes, sugar indeed != fat. When you do eat sugar - it is your body's first choice for energy. This means that any fat you eat gets stored for later consumption... which will be never cuz most of us eat way too much sugar anyway.

DaniFong 17y ago

I have a startup idea surrounding this that I think could be killer. I'm working full-time (on another startup) but I'm applying to YC anyway because I think it would be an easy hack with huge benefits and the possibility of making a lot of wealth. If you're interested I'm looking for a cofounder -- email me at daniellefong at daniellefong dot com.

rdouble 17y ago
Have you seen Joel Fuhrman's ANDI rating system? It's being used at Whole Foods. http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m3d6-Whats-the-nutrient-density-of-your-food-Get-the-ANDI-score http://www.examiner.com/x-672-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2...
- jrockway 17y ago
  What I get out of these "boiled-down" systems is that I should just eat a vitamin pill and some cardboard. Low sugar, low fat, high nutrients.
  - rdouble 17y ago
    Go for it.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    There might be a lot you're missing. Nutrition is hideously complex, but since we're evolved to eat whole foods and there are a lot of bioactive enzymes and or compounds that aren't well known or in vitamin pills you could be missing out on something crucial.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      That would be my point.
      - DaniFong 17y ago

henrikschroder 17y ago

Where I am, all nutrition labels contain the amounts per 100g/100ml (for comparison with other items) and per "serving" (for knowing how much you typically get). The problem though is that serving sizes typically don't reflect how much you actually eat, especially for food that's bad for you. A serving of chips is usually a fistful, a serving of chocolate is not the entire bar, etc. Overall the system is ok, but there's room for improvement. On the other hand, nutrition labels are such a small problem, the big problem is that people eat too fucking much, and no label in the world are going to stop them from doing so.