Triumphant White House announcement: Calorie counts on food labels to get bigger font or something

posted at 5:21 pm on February 27, 2014 by Allahpundit

I know Ed flagged it in the Greenroom but news this momentous belongs on the front page. I’m not going to lie to you, though: I’m torn. On the one hand, the fact that this is major news across the wires feels like a parody of “gesture liberalism,” the term George Will uses to describe small-ball initiatives designed more to make lefties feel good than to accomplish something meaningful. The vast majority of people ignore calorie counts on restaurant menus, when calculating the damage from a single meal is easy. Imagine how much more easily ignored they are at the supermarket, when shoppers are grabbing dozens of items to be eaten over the course of days. If you’re someone who cares about calorie counts, you’re going to find them on the label even if they’re in four-point font. Trying to solve the obesity problem by making the font bigger is like having a guy at the check-out counter with a megaphone saying, “YOU’RE NOT REALLY GOING TO EAT THAT, ARE YOU?” Meh.

But. As I’ve said many times before, if there’s one thing I’ve learned from years of blogging polls, it’s never to underestimate the stupidity of the low-information voter. Maybe a shiny object in the form of bigger print is just what an especially doltish consumer needs to get him to pay attention. But then, why would a dolt know offhand how many calories is too many? You could put that information on the label in big print too, I guess, but then you still need the dolt to bust out the calculator app on his smart phone to figure out how many tubs of ice cream per day he can eat before he bumps up against the 2,500 daily calorie limit. That’s my problem with the serving size adjustment described in the clip, the one potentially useful tweak to the label. It’s smart to change the serving sizes to more accurately reflect the portions Americans actually consume, but you’re still asking the customer to do some basic math and basic math just ain’t in the cards for everyone, especially amid the cacophony of the grocery store. Maybe we’re better off just drawing lines on the sides of each container. “Eat to here, then stop.” Think it’ll work?

Or, we could just follow what other countries do for cigarettes and use the labels to scare people straight. Good luck finishing that bag of Chips Ahoy while you’re staring at a pic of a pile of liposuctioned fat.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Are we really to believe that the same mother who feeds the kids of her baby daddies (when the school isn’t doing it) will change behaviors because of a larger font on the packaging?

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 6:51 PM

Maybe if it is in Spanish or pictures.

Wade on February 27, 2014 at 6:59 PM

I feel the numbers should be in red and have little drops of cartoony blood dripping from them, really hit home on just how dangerous the calorie is.

Bishop on February 27, 2014 at 6:56 PM

Agreed. And you just gave me an awesome idea for a Halloween costume in October…… I’m going as a calorie!

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 6:59 PM

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 6:56 PM

I make a point of cooking a pound of bacon every Sunday. Getting expensive cuz I don’t have ObamaStamps.

Key West Reader on February 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Fast food burgers get a bum rap. Totally without merit in my opinion. A whopper from Burger King has protein, carbohydrates, fiber, vitamins and if you get it with cheese some calcium and some very necessary fats. Pretty well balanced meal all in all.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 6:56 PM

The proggies point their guns at fast food because they tend to be big corporations, many multinational, which automatically makes them evil and diabolical.

Meanwhile the REB and the rest of the prog ruling elite eat their ‘gourmet hamburgers’ at trendy little cafes, and they have even more calories and fat than the fast food restaurants.

It’s totally illogical, but then they’re Democratics.

slickwillie2001 on February 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM

I make a point of cooking a pound of bacon every Sunday. Getting expensive cuz I don’t have ObamaStamps.

Key West Reader on February 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM

You’ve got those “bacon bowl” things don’t you? You know, the shaped forms that only require like four or five slices of bacon but are “healthy” because you can drain the fat off? ;0

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Maybe if it is in Spanish or pictures.

Wade on February 27, 2014 at 6:59 PM

You mock but we’ve still got three years of these monsters.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:04 PM

I like having the calories labeled on foods and my patients are supposed to look at them too. Having them larger will make it a little easier to find. This is probably the most positive thing that the government has done during Obama’s administration anyway, so in that sense it’s newsworthy.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM

First glowbull worming, now the calorie; we’ll be lucky to survive this century without the globe exploding.

Bishop on February 27, 2014 at 7:07 PM

Key West Reader on February 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Tonight was my turn to prepare dinner. Bow tie pasta with fresh chopped parsley. Over the top was chicken browned in butter and simmered in a mushroom cream sauce. Side was steamed brussel sprouts again coated with butter. Just so you know I don’t buy anything that says low fat or no fat and I’ll pay attention to Michelle’s recommendations when her butt is smaller than mine.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:07 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM

You do realize that ‘numbers’ can be triggers for people.
Nutr. Info doesn’t change the eating habits of obese people like my husband-it changes the eating habits of people like me.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:08 PM

You’ve got those “bacon bowl” things don’t you? You know, the shaped forms that only require like four or five slices of bacon but are “healthy” because you can drain the fat off? ;0

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:02 PM

Back off my bacon bowls.

Key West Reader on February 27, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Once in a while it gets even more interesting when the real world burst the bubble, like during the last Presidential election cycle.

Constantine on February 27, 2014 at 5:57 PM

Or ObamaCare for you guys.

Chuck Schick on February 27, 2014 at 7:10 PM

Key West Reader on February 27, 2014 at 7:00 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot. I have no idea what the calorie count was on that meal tonight….and I don’t give a siht! It WAS tasty though.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:10 PM

I like having the calories labeled on foods and my patients are supposed to look at them too. Having them larger will make it a little easier to find. This is probably the most positive thing that the government has done during Obama’s administration anyway, so in that sense it’s newsworthy.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Behold statist logic.

/You must NOT be able to deduce what is good or NOT good for you, so using the Michelle Obama Fatass Model in 2014…

Eat up, bicches – we outta office in 2 years. Order up! It’s free. Only the taxpayers have to pay up for your consumptions.

Uh Huh

Key West Reader on February 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I propose a green,yellow, red dot indicating whether it’s a low calories, medium calorie, or high calorie food. I realize that high calorie doesn’t necessarily mean unhealthy, but it’s a good approximation in a lot of cases.

themuppet on February 27, 2014 at 5:32 PM

Sadly, my hospital cafeteria does just that, but they don’t base it on calories, they base it on percentage fat, amount of sodium, etc. Some a 600 calorie lunch that has a low fat content gets a green dot, while a 100 caloris bowl of soup gets a red dot because it is high in sodium, which doesn’t matter for most people. I’ve also seen them post muffins as 60 calories which has to be wrong. Even a diet muffin is about 300.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM

I’m starting to get triggered even contemplating such a horrific ‘coding’ system being mandated
I hope something like that is NEVER do-at least not during my lifetime.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:18 PM

Sadly, my hospital cafeteria does just that, but they don’t base it on calories, they base it on percentage fat, amount of sodium, etc. Some a 600 calorie lunch that has a low fat content gets a green dot, while a 100 caloris bowl of soup gets a red dot because it is high in sodium, which doesn’t matter for most people. I’ve also seen them post muffins as 60 calories which has to be wrong. Even a diet muffin is about 300.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:11 PM

Ok sport for breakfast this morning I had two pieces of bacon, two eggs over easy in butter, two pieces of buttered toast, black coffee and a banana. What color dot would you put on that?

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Compared to the preceding 8-year Bush crash-and-burn, we’ve had a freaking Renaissance.

Constantine on February 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM

What data would you cite to support your “8-year Bush crash-and-burn” view?

Would it be…employment? Size and growth of the national debt? Military deaths in war zones? Growth (or lack thereof) of personal wealth or wages?

C’mon, show me one single meaningful statistic that supports your view. One.

Oh, and that “eight million jobs added” thingy your boyfriend keeps flogging isn’t meaningful by itself, but you keep on spankin’ that; ditto with any number of supposed additional insureds under PPACA.

(Hint: “I won” meant something 15 months ago, but that is an eternity in political cycles, mate)

Wanderlust on February 27, 2014 at 7:23 PM

Wanderlust on February 27, 2014 at 7:23 PM

You shouldn’t mud wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty but the pig likes it.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:26 PM

You do realize that ‘numbers’ can be triggers for people.
Nutr. Info doesn’t change the eating habits of obese people like my husband-it changes the eating habits of people like me.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:08 PM

Not quite sure what you mean by numbers as triggers. Does having a high calorie count make you more likely to eat something? That’s not a situation I have seen in my practice.

Obviously not everyone will care, but there are some people who will and I think it’s nice to have the information readily available. My husband tends to be heavy and when we are together we do try to eat at places where the nutritional information is available-it’s harder than you think to guess some of the calorie content. A lot of salads can be 1000 calories. If the numbers are availble we try to use them. If you don’t want to, feel free not to.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Ok sport for breakfast this morning I had two pieces of bacon, two eggs over easy in butter, two pieces of buttered toast, black coffee and a banana. What color dot would you put on that?

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:19 PM

My colour would be, “Good” :)

So many idiots don’t realise that so-called “diet” foods merely substitute sugar for fat. Another trick is to reduce the “serving size” quoted in the nutritional info.

That sugar substitution point (regarding diet foods) does make for an interesting consideration when noting the fact that sugar imports are subject to tariff restrictions.

My bottom line is, anything involving Government and nutrition is suspect because what Government says is almost always the result of lobbying by some group or another.

Funny how obesity issues came to the fore around the same time that Government began telling people what they should be eating…hmmmm.

Wanderlust on February 27, 2014 at 7:30 PM

You do realize that ‘numbers’ can be triggers for people.
Nutr. Info doesn’t change the eating habits of obese people like my husband-it changes the eating habits of people like me.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:08 PM

My parents live in one of those “independent living” communities. Meals (lunch/dinner) are included in their monthly fees. The first time I went there for dinner, I thought that everything was going to be bland but the management doesn’t spend a whole lot of time worrying about making meals “healthy.” They give choices and expect the residents to choose based on their own needs, dietary restrictions, and appetites. A lesson for us all.

YOU CAN’T REGULATE CONSUMPTION.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:31 PM

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:26 PM

Yeah, but I’m bored and I like to see ignorance on display.

BTW, are you celebrating this Saturday? 60 years ago, March 1st was an interesting day… ;)

Wanderlust on February 27, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Ok sport for breakfast this morning I had two pieces of bacon, two eggs over easy in butter, two pieces of buttered toast, black coffee and a banana. What color dot would you put on that?

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:19 PM

Definitely a black dot. With the question mark. How the hell did a banana sneak into the mix? ;0

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:34 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Getting nutritional info shoved in my face makes me more likely to OVER exercise or not eat ENOUGH. Nutritional info takes away some of my enjoyment of eating.
I was a sophomore in high school when I first went symptomatic. I’m going on 44 now.
ED’s can be brought under control-but they usually never go totally away. Exercise and spending all day on my feet at work is how I currently make it ‘heed’.
My PCP when we lived in Chicago was a lefty ‘Catholic’ and he AGREED that NI should be ava-but not ‘in your face’.
I don’t NEED to see calories on a menu board/menu. For me-and those in similar situations-it’s a bad /unhealthy thing.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Ok sport for breakfast this morning I had two pieces of bacon, two eggs over easy in butter, two pieces of buttered toast, black coffee and a banana. What color dot would you put on that?

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:19 PM

If you have to ask…

One of my favorites was an obese diabetic with high cholesterol in whom I had placed two coronary stents who came in and his cholesterol was not at goal and his weight was not improving. I asked what he had for breakfast.

Two Egg McMuffins.

OK, that’s not what he should have had, but even more impressive is that he told me. Seriously, would you tell your cardiologist you had 2 Egg McMuffins for breakfast?

For people that have no health issues-just ignore the numbers. But there are a lot of people with diabetes, obesity and heart disease and I think it is helpful for them to have the information avialable. Remember, if they are on Medicare or Medicaid, and you are a taxpayer, you have to pay the price if they can’t control their health.

My father has heart disease and does low carb. His weight and cholesterol are perfect. He is maniacal about food labels. I really don’t see how it hurts to have the information available.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Btw: MY PCP wants me to go for balance. Get a salad w/ my cheeseburger. Don’t live on Wowieccinos. etc The LAST thing that she wants me to do is count calories. In 2003 I was borderline ‘ana’.
Never again will I got through that!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

I don’t NEED to see calories on a menu board/menu. For me-and those in similar situations-it’s a bad /unhealthy thing.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

I would agree that the nutritional information is not helpful for people with eating disorders. The number of people with eating disorders is a lot smaller than the number of people with diseases related to consuming too many calories, however, and the costs to society/taxpayers are much higher for the people that overeat than those that undereat.

In my practice I don’t have anyone with your type of eating disorder, but sadly see many people in their 20′s and 30′s that weigh 300-500 pounds. I think nutritional information is of some benefit to those people.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Have you spent 28 years w/ an exercise addiction(now better than it was)? Were you addicted to diet pills until 10 years ago?
I have/I was.
Having it in large print on menus and packages goes waaay beyond having it ‘available’.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM

If you have to ask…

One of my favorites was an obese diabetic with high cholesterol in whom I had placed two coronary stents who came in and his cholesterol was not at goal and his weight was not improving. I asked what he had for breakfast.

Two Egg McMuffins.

OK, that’s not what he should have had, but even more impressive is that he told me. Seriously, would you tell your cardiologist you had 2 Egg McMuffins for breakfast?

For people that have no health issues-just ignore the numbers. But there are a lot of people with diabetes, obesity and heart disease and I think it is helpful for them to have the information avialable. Remember, if they are on Medicare or Medicaid, and you are a taxpayer, you have to pay the price if they can’t control their health.

My father has heart disease and does low carb. His weight and cholesterol are perfect. He is maniacal about food labels. I really don’t see how it hurts to have the information available.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Two sides of the same coin proving that this faux accomplishment of better nutritional information is worthless.

That diabetic was still going to have those two Egg McMuffins even if he had to sign a waiver stating that he understood the nutritional content. Your dad’s mania about what he injests means that he probably has a good idea about nutritional content even before he asks or reads the labels.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Btw: MY PCP wants me to go for balance. Get a salad w/ my cheeseburger. Don’t live on Wowieccinos. etc The LAST thing that she wants me to do is count calories. In 2003 I was borderline ‘ana’.
Never again will I got through that!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:39 PM

Sounds like good advice-best of luck.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

. I really don’t see how it hurts to have the information available.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

I agree. Buy a book but don’t make me pay for it. Not the purpose of government.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

My husband is early 50′s, 5’4, and around 260-270.
Nutritional info has zero effect on him.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:45 PM

That diabetic was still going to have those two Egg McMuffins even if he had to sign a waiver stating that he understood the nutritional content.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM

Hey, if only someone had thought to stick a pink dot on that egg McMuffin it might have turned this poor guy’s entire life around.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Those hundreds of thousands of tax dollars I’ve paid had extracted from my paycheck over my working lifetime are finally paying off.

Socratease on February 27, 2014 at 7:54 PM

That diabetic was still going to have those two Egg McMuffins even if he had to sign a waiver stating that he understood the nutritional content. Your dad’s mania about what he injests means that he probably has a good idea about nutritional content even before he asks or reads the labels.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 7:43 PM

He said he didn’t know they were bad for him. I agree he should have known after his diabetic teaching classes, but I think most patients really don’t want another angioplasty or open heart surgery, and if it isn’t too much trouble, and the information is easy to find and read (for all the seniors with their vision issues) they will try to do the right thing. This does not apply to all patients of course.

There are some patients who will never take their medicine, who will never stop smoking and who will never eat right. But most patients will try to do the right thing most of the time. This should make it a little easier.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:56 PM

In my practice I don’t have anyone with your type of eating disorder, but sadly see many people in their 20′s and 30′s that weigh 300-500 pounds. I think nutritional information is of some benefit to those people.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Really? How long has nutritional information been a requirement on food packaging? Those folks that weigh 300-500 lbs in their 20s and 30s have had that information available almost their entire lives and yet they still weigh 300-500 pounds. How much benefit has it been for them? Ask yourself this. Is the number of obese people increasing in the US? Information is just so much static if it’s not used and if the reported trends are accurate those vaunted food labels are just a bunch of static.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:57 PM

7 trillion dollars of debt in 5 years, and THIS is what we have to show for it?

TarheelBen on February 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:42 PM

Fine-then your patients can read them and nutritional info can be ABSENT from anything that I want to eat-of course…that’s not how it works.
Not all physicians are nannystaters like you.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Hey, if only someone had thought to stick a pink dot on that egg McMuffin it might have turned this poor guy’s entire life around.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:47 PM

Not from my experience. I’ve literally had somebody with health and diabetic problems tell me about his health woes while he was downing a super-sized Big Mac “value meal.”

And to be clear, I’m not a calorie nazi. I cook for taste and pay attention to portions and overall caloric intake.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM

My husband is early 50′s, 5’4, and around 260-270.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 7:45 PM

Sounds like my guy. But mine has hypertension and high cholesterol. If he has the nutritional info he tries to use it (at least in my presence). I think it helps some. He really needs to exercise, but he works in IT and his job is very sedentary and he also has a very slow metabolism.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:01 PM

Sorry, I forgot the sarc tag :-(

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 8:04 PM

There are some patients who will never take their medicine, who will never stop smoking and who will never eat right. But most patients will try to do the right thing most of the time. This should make it a little easier.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:56 PM

Okay fine. This ventures into the realm of the idea that we need to ban all guns just because one child might be saved by doing so. Do we really need the state THIS involved in what we eat?

When I decided to eat more healthy, I did it the old-fashioned way. I buy the least processed food I can find.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:07 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:03 PM

Mine’s a railroader who has a family history of obesity
My dad was tall and under-weight, my brother has Marfans(he’s tall/skinny), and my son is tall and VERY slim. Don’t know if he has Marfans or not. W/his build-it wouldn’t surprise me.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 8:10 PM

That’s an angry-looking woman in that picture.

ExpressoBold on February 27, 2014 at 8:12 PM

I agree. Buy a book but don’t make me pay for it. Not the purpose of government.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 7:44 PM

How are you paying for this? How is the government paying for this?

It is really disappointing to see that a conservative site which should value information-knowledge is power-has such vehement opposition to something as innocuous as calorie lables on food to help people with obesity (which is a major health problem in this country) make better food choices if they wish.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

This ventures into the realm of the idea that we need to ban all guns just because one child might be saved by doing so. Do we really need the state THIS involved in what we eat?

When I decided to eat more healthy, I did it the old-fashioned way. I buy the least processed food I can find.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:07 PM

Putting nutritional labels on food is like banning guns?

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Sorry, I forgot the sarc tag :-(

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 8:04 PM

Oh! I got the sarc. I wanted to rant! :0

I can’t tell you the number of people I’ve encountered that know they are doing stuff “the doctor” wouldn’t like but do anyway. Diabetics more willing to have limbs amputated than they are to give up the bucket of fried chicken. Individuals who still drink even though it mitigates the effects of their heart medication. And all the rest.

Which really brings me to my greater point. It’s all about personal responsibility and accountability and NOT relying on package labels.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:16 PM

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

I’m sure you can understand my objections to it.
I’ve been fighting the battle of the nutritional labels since the W administration.

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 8:17 PM

Putting nutritional labels on food is like banning guns?

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:16 PM

No. Try to keep up here.

Claiming that nutritional labels on food will save lives is akin to claiming that banning guns will save lives.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:18 PM

Compared to the preceding 8-year Bush crash-and-burn, we’ve had a freaking Renaissance.

Constantine on February 27, 2014 at 6:49 PM

Lol, that sounds like something I read over at the Huffington Bubble.

Holy Chit, you’re a moron. I bet you think changing a the font size will really change lives.

HumpBot Salvation on February 27, 2014 at 8:24 PM

Instead why don’t we change the font of our national debt and have that speedily changing number posted everywhere? Oh well, most Americans care more about nutrition labels (or not) more than what will ultimately take us all down.

jazzuscounty on February 27, 2014 at 8:26 PM

jazzuscounty on February 27, 2014 at 8:26 PM

Now THOSE are numbers that I’d like to see displayed everywhere!

annoyinglittletwerp on February 27, 2014 at 8:28 PM

Does it conceal carry its bowcaster?

Murphy9 on February 27, 2014 at 8:29 PM

Which really brings me to my greater point. It’s all about personal responsibility and accountability and NOT relying on package labels.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:16 PM

Eggzactlllly Right! The reason we have an increase in obesity in this country is because food has become so plentiful and so readily available without any effort that people overeat. Putting little dots and labels on everything is not only useless it’s a stupid waste of time and resources. Within minutes of my home there are no fewer than 10 fast food restaurants, there are at least three restaurants that will deliver meals to my home, three pizza places that will deliver and if I want to go out there are more restaurants than I can easily count. When I was growing up we didn’t have many fat kids, hell we didn’t even have many plump kids. We all rode bikes wherever we went and we ate regular meals at pretty much fixed times. Today mealtime is flexible to say the least. Both parents work, one or the other will stop on the way home and pick up take out. Either that or a grocery store that has a prepared food section, something that didn’t exist not that many years ago. It’s convenient. In today’s grocery stores there is an entire section devoted to chips, nuts and snacks. That section alone takes up more space than an entire grocery from my youth. Like most things the government in general and Michelle in particular are focused on the wrong thing and spending money in a useless effort that is doomed to failure. In my world if something doesn’t work I get rid of it. In government world they just throw more money at it. Of course it’s not their money.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM

There are legitimate reasons to put nutritional info on foods.

For instance, I have to watch my sugar and carb intake, since I have an actual disease.

I think the small number of people who may have weird ass issue with this might want to find something else to bitch about.

NativeTexan on February 27, 2014 at 8:50 PM

In my world if something doesn’t work I get rid of it. In government world they just throw more money at it. Of course it’s not their money.

Oldnuke on February 27, 2014 at 8:35 PM

Good summation, I agree completely.

Growing up, fast food was the occasional treat not a normal meal. It is that mentality and not labeling that is different from the current situation.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 8:52 PM

Shut up mochelle and start leading by example and not by scarfing down 100 dollar meals

AH_C on February 27, 2014 at 8:57 PM

I disagree. Americans as a whole are not nutritionally illiterate. They simply don’t care. Do you really think that somebody is going to be checking the labeling before reaching for a second slice of cheesecake? You’re insulting the intelligence of Americans.

Happy Nomad on February 27, 2014 at 6:58 PM

That isn’t exactly what I meant, but I can definitely see how it came across that way. What I meant is that nutrition comprises a good bit more than just calories. Vitamin and mineral intake can play more of a role in weight loss or gain than people think.

They stopped teaching nutrition in the public schools a good while back, (probably shifted the funding to sex ed instead) So we have a generation of Americans who aren’t really aware of what “balanced nutrition” means.

lineholder on February 27, 2014 at 9:01 PM

The calorie count is meaningless when the portion size isn’t realistic.

clement on February 27, 2014 at 10:50 PM

All I can think when I see ridiculous antics like this is how pathetically STUPID Obama voters are. Honestly, we’ve got all these REAL problems to deal with in this nation, and these bozos are worried about the calorie count on food labels. It’s astonishing.

Murf76 on February 28, 2014 at 12:36 AM

“This is a huge deal.”
-M. Obama-mamma

RedManBlueState on February 28, 2014 at 3:40 AM

Having them larger will make it a little easier to find.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:05 PM

Really? Because your patients are too stupid to find the little white box on the container now, but they will be able to when the print inside it is bigger? Wow………

GWB on February 28, 2014 at 9:20 AM

This is pretty much a non-issue. Most people pay no attention to the nutritional info anyway. Even if they did, most people don’t understand the nutritional info to know what is good or bad.

Simple solution for someone who is really bothered by this and can’t understand that 2,000 calories a day is the standard:
Start growing your own food.

No labels on home grown/home raised food. Plus you know where you food comes from.

Also, less trips to fast food joints will go a long way towards healthier eating while not seeing nutritional info on junk food. It’s called junk food for a reason after all.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM

I think we should go whole hog on this. Since what is currently on the labels is actually kilocalories*, we should require the food packagers to put the actual calories on there – force them to add three 0s to the end of all those numbers. THAT will get people’s attention! No more obesity! Woohoo!

* A food calorie is 1,000 calories as a unit of energy, hence a kilocalorie. But, confusingly they called that a calorie.

GWB on February 28, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Remember, if they are on Medicare or Medicaid, and you are a taxpayer, you have to pay the price if they can’t control their health.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

Which is an argument for me to not be paying their medical bill, not that I should force them to live a certain way.

I really don’t see how it hurts to have the information available.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 7:35 PM

And the information is available. But, somehow it isn’t enough. So, the control freaks are going to require that it be bigger. Because that will make the difference for the obese consumer. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight…………

GWB on February 28, 2014 at 9:48 AM

This is pretty much a non-issue.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 9:22 AM

What makes it an issue is that the government is yet again forcing us to do something for our own good. Because they think this meaningless gesture will somehow make everyone healthy.

GWB on February 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM

What makes it an issue is that the government is yet again forcing us to do something for our own good. Because they think this meaningless gesture will somehow make everyone healthy.

GWB on February 28, 2014 at 9:50 AM

And as history has shown; it won’t. This is pretty much busy work on the federal level. They can post the nutritional info as large as they wish. Only I choose to lose weight or not.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 10:14 AM

Wow… I’m embarrassed by some of the comments on this thread. How on earth does personally attacking the First Lady relate to terrible policy decisions? Her appearance, gender, weight, etc. have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Even if she had the constitution of an Olympic athlete, I’d be more concerned with increased business costs, nanny-state overreach, and the fact that it won’t change a thing about America’s eating habits, especially in a down economy that makes buying quality, healthy food so unaffordable.

SLMeyer on February 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

SLMeyer on February 28, 2014 at 10:15 AM

Are you trying to shame people? You know that doesn’t work here.

mizflame98 on February 28, 2014 at 10:36 AM

calorie lables on food to help people with obesity (which is a major health problem in this country) make better food choices if they wish.

talkingpoints on February 27, 2014 at 8:15 PM

While they are wishing maybe the obese should wish to be thin. It is behavior and until they address their own problems nothing will be of help. Not the governments place mandating to free enterprise how they must market their products.

Wade on February 28, 2014 at 11:22 AM

She is trying very hard to fly cover and give the American women a distraction from her idiot husband and his circus clown foreign policy.
Might I ask one of the Presstitutes to ask Mooshell some simple questions: What were the circumstances of her having to surrender her license to practice law in Illinois? Does she intend to recover it if and when they leave the White House? (Did she really attend Princeton?)

Missilengr on February 28, 2014 at 3:20 PM

A picture of MooShell’s booty on a box of cookies would be more effective.

NoPain on February 28, 2014 at 6:05 PM

Comment pages: 1 2