FDA to propose new food labels

Why not a breakdown of each of the nutritional components of each of the complete list of ingredients? -- we can make the label an encyclopedia of random information. What about the sourcing information about each of those ingredients? I can't be truly informed if I know the don't soil that something on the list of ingredients was grown in. Oh, and a really big one. Seriously. What about contaminants? They are excluded from complete lists of ingredients, but if I need to know the complete list of ingredients, shouldn't we mandate that the label spells out every chemical contaminant, heavy metal, PCB, perchlorate, etc. that can be found in the food?

I can go on and on. It is random, because you are making up subjective standards about what people need to be "informed" about. And again, I ask, if people WANT that information. ... why can't they demand it themselves rather than some bureaucratic authority randomly and subjectively deciding what makes a consumer informed and what doesn't?

That said, as well. ... This new rule has nothing to do with a complete list of ingredients. It is a whole new and random scheme (changing the old randomness), with an emphasis now on sugars. It requires testing. Which costs money. And dictates product labeling. It will cause hundreds of thousands of already established products to now bare the expense of new packaging.

 

I'm not arguing anything of the sort. I am arguing that a governmental authority shouldn't MANDATE that a hitter's avg., HRs and RBIS be on the screen when he comes to bat.

If people are interested in it. ... well, the reason that that info is on the screen is that the people who produce the broadcasts do it to meet the demand for it. Not because someone mandated they have to do it.

 

Indeed because life span ONLY has to do with what you eat. Nothing else. Just that.

 

In my first post, I called it useless, and tried to give evidence of how meaningless the labels are to most people. ... as well, as how the selective demonization of certain nutritional components in the mandated labeling has led to categories of processed that have created whole other consequences (which are now being addressed with new rules!).

The randomness of it is separate and inarguable, though. Why the emphasis on "sugar" now in the new rules? Why not put complex carbohydrates in bold on the label instead? Or instead of one type of carbohydrate, why aren't we singling out a random protein, say caseins?

I can break down food into a gazillion nutritional components. Why aren't 1,000 other things not mandated?

That is what I mean by random.

And once again, if this particular information is so important to consumers. ... what exactly has ever stopped them from demanding it themselves? Why does it need to be mandated?