3 ms·

Michelle Obama flew under the radar a lot when she originally pledged to tackle childhood obesity Then the sugar lobby waded in Suddenly her tune changed from

Michelle Obama flew under the radar a lot when she originally pledged to tackle childhood obesity Then the sugar lobby waded in Suddenly her tune changed from "eat less candy!/drink less soda!" to "exercise more, kids!" As an immigrant to the US it's downright bewildering that the only fields on nutritional labels without daily intake percentages seem to be Sugar and Trans Fats [1] [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/US_Nutritional_Fact_Label_2.svg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/US_Nutri...

tredre3 3y ago
I agree with your general point but on your own screenshot: - The recommended amount of trans fat is 0, a percentage would make no sense - There is a total carbs percentage, so I'm going to guess again that the recommended "sugars" subcategory is likely unknown or trending towards 0 - There is no percentage for proteins and yet nobody would argue that it's a trick from big food so clearly there must be a reason why some rows have no percentage?
- NPC82 3y ago
  >There is no percentage for proteins and yet nobody would argue that it's a trick from big food so clearly there must be a reason why some rows have no percentage? Yeah it begs the question for sure. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans [1, pg128], the research shows that Americans have no problem consuming lots of meats that contain protein, and so it's probably not listed for that reason. I've even been taught simply that we eat too much protein as a country. Generally, the only major group that struggles with protein would be those aged 71 and over, because their requirements are higher than a middle-aged average adult. IIRC the FDA picks and chooses to list daily %ages for things that most(?) Americans will struggle with, but there's also some voluntary options for manufacturers that might want to flaunt added vitamins - a good example is Vitamin C because no one struggles with this but when it's added to a children's gummy nutrition facts voluntarily it then gives them a slight marketing advantage. [1] https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/
NPC82 3y ago
I believe you have linked the older nutrition facts label here's a link to the newer one which includes a category called "added sugars" with its own daily intake %. https://www.fda.gov/media/135197/download?attachment https://www.fda.gov/media/135197/download?attachment The reason it's only for added sugar is because "sugar" can be ambiguous, and sugars can be both metabolized differently (eg: fruit sugar/fructose) and is the primary source of energy for the brain (with few exceptions). Since the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010" schools really do serve a lot more variety and the nutritional standards are much better. Any issues that made it to the media have had to do with the "last mile"(as they say in telco) as school districts have to have functional operations to implement them, and that includes class A drivers and dietitian(s) on staff.

tredre3 3y ago

I agree with your general point but on your own screenshot: - The recommended amount of trans fat is 0, a percentage would make no sense - There is a total carbs percentage, so I'm going to guess again that the recommended "sugars" subcategory is likely unknown or trending towards 0 - There is no percentage for proteins and yet nobody would argue that it's a trick from big food so clearly there must be a reason why some rows have no percentage?

NPC82 3y ago
>There is no percentage for proteins and yet nobody would argue that it's a trick from big food so clearly there must be a reason why some rows have no percentage? Yeah it begs the question for sure. According to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans [1, pg128], the research shows that Americans have no problem consuming lots of meats that contain protein, and so it's probably not listed for that reason. I've even been taught simply that we eat too much protein as a country. Generally, the only major group that struggles with protein would be those aged 71 and over, because their requirements are higher than a middle-aged average adult. IIRC the FDA picks and chooses to list daily %ages for things that most(?) Americans will struggle with, but there's also some voluntary options for manufacturers that might want to flaunt added vitamins - a good example is Vitamin C because no one struggles with this but when it's added to a children's gummy nutrition facts voluntarily it then gives them a slight marketing advantage. [1] https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/ https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/

NPC82 3y ago

I believe you have linked the older nutrition facts label here's a link to the newer one which includes a category called "added sugars" with its own daily intake %. https://www.fda.gov/media/135197/download?attachment https://www.fda.gov/media/135197/download?attachment The reason it's only for added sugar is because "sugar" can be ambiguous, and sugars can be both metabolized differently (eg: fruit sugar/fructose) and is the primary source of energy for the brain (with few exceptions). Since the "Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010" schools really do serve a lot more variety and the nutritional standards are much better. Any issues that made it to the media have had to do with the "last mile"(as they say in telco) as school districts have to have functional operations to implement them, and that includes class A drivers and dietitian(s) on staff.