The city of brotherly love has decided to spread some nutritional love. A Philadelphia city council has given the thumbs up to requiring area restaurants to post nutrition information include calories, fat, and carbs. A final vote is still pending and there is some dissention about the measure. Critics feel that the requirements are too broad and that it would be difficult for some establishments to comply.

Not all restaurants would be required to post nutrition information. Only chains with 10 or more locations, convenience stores, delis, bakeries, and some coffee shops are included in the measure.

For some restaurants, determining nutrition data could be difficult -- particularly if meals can be customized or if there is a rapidly changing menu. But from a consumer's standpoint, I love that Philly is taking a stand. Sometimes restaurant meals can be shockers, so having the information there in black and white is a helpful tool. Remember, even if the restaurant you're going to doesn't post the info on their web site or in the restaurant, ask your server. They may know/can get the info for you or, at least, can let you know how it's prepared.

Source

Not too long ago I went to dinner at Ruby Tuesday's with my sister. I substituted veggies for my fries and ordered a meal that I thought would be on the lighter side. There was no nutrition info on the menu so I was flying blind. When I got home, I popped on their web site and took a peek. The meal that I didn't think was too bad calorie-wise? It totaled 918 calories and 60 grams of fat.

Sometimes it's hard to eat light when you're out and about. Even salads and veggies can have a crazy high calorie content depending on how they're prepared. If a restaurant doesn't provide the full nutrition information, how are you supposed to know? Your best bet is to be prepared. Check out the restaurant's web site before you go out to eat. You can also ask the server if they have nutrition information -- even if they don't post it on the menu they sometimes have it available by request.

Men's Health has a list of 16 restaurant shockers. Some of the items that made my jaw drop were Outback's Aussie Cheese Fries which have 2,900 calories and Dunkin Donuts fruit-and-yogurt smoothies with at least 60 grams of sugar. Want to be even more shocked? Check out the 20 Worst Foods in America.

Source

I've always wondered how those "Nutrition Facts" labels on processed foods are generated. Is there written evidence to back up those claims, and does anyone question the food manufacturers that print these on billions of food labels every year?

The enforcement is left to the FDA, so there is no telling if Nutrition Facts policing goes on during the year, via spot checks or some other kind of enforcement.

Let's not even get into the facts printed on restaurant menus. And then the question of specifics come into play. Since 10 people could eat 10 of the same meals 10 different ways (removing this, adding that), it's hard to gauge the true nutrition contained in a restaurant meal.

Should anyone be worried about this? Not really -- but since information empowers, it would be nice to have it in excess and not in short supply. But then again, keeping eating citizens ignorant is the job of many food companies.

Source

I've long been a critic of the "Nutrition Facts" labels used on all processed foods sold in the U.S. Too little information is given and the numbers are easily manipulated by manufacturers based on unrealistic proportions.

So, it's a major win to hear that a new system for scoring the nutritional value of foods is set to hit product labels in 2008. Not only will a label change allow consumers to make healthier choices, it will hopefully end ambiguity about what exactly is in all those foods. That is, is the new labeling is done correctly.

the new labeling system, called the Overall Nutritional Quality Index (ONQI), is set to be implemented sometime in 2008. It takes into account a number of factors and should be way more insightful that the bare minimum nutritional information used now on most foods.

Source

In what has been a long time coming, the FDA said last week that it -- finally -- will be reviewing existing rules that govern the use of the "Nutrition Facts" labels sold on all processed and packaged food in the U.S.

I've been a critic of these labels for quite a long time, since the data can be manipulated (serving sizes) and cryptic to the average food shopper. In essence, you may get a small feel from these labels in terms of nutrition content, but in terms of overall nutritious profile, forget it.

The FDA may be considering removing some existing nutrients from the labels as well as reorganizing the way the information is presented. Food manufacturers will then immediately seek ways to get their information on there to may those basically dead foods seem nutritious when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Source

Forget the easily-manipulated "Nutrition Facts" labels on food containers. Unless you're prepared to scrutinize and compare most processed and packaged food products every time you eat them, an easier way to judge the nutrition (or lack thereof) should exist.

In Maine, a "gold star" food rating system that was designed to give customers an idea about healthy food products seems to be working as intended.

The supermarket chain Hannaford Bros. came up with the system that ranks foods with a series of stars (one to three of them), so that hurried customers (read: almost all of us) could instantly gauge healthy foods from unhealthy foods. I'd suspect that sugary, artificially colored breakfast cereals received no stars, while whole-grain, uncolored breakfast cereals probably garnered at least one star.

Why don't other grocery chains do something like this?

Source

In a unique development meant to warn consumers about the food they are about to eat, New Zealand's government may be installing a "traffic light" system that warns food-consuming patrons about obesity-causing foods and drinks.

That is, if companies in New Zealand don't do this first in voluntary fashion. The system involves labels colored red, yellow and green in indicate levels of fat, salt and sugar lurking inside foods.

It may take something as basic as this to give food consumers "at a glance" information about food nutrition, and I applaud it. From what I've seen, many consumers would love to eat healthy, but then they don't pay attention to food labels and nutritional information that would help them make an informed choice. Such a "traffic light" system would make decision making fairly straightforward.

Source

Perhaps the purveyors of sugary food are trying to make a stab at actually providing consumers with easy-to-use nutritional information. At least, that is what I see with the latest press from Kelloggs.

One of the most popular breakfast cereal brands will unleash a new "Nutrition at a Glance" label on its cereal boxes this fall. The new label was designed to give consumers easier ways to measure nutrition information outside of the easily-manipulated "Nutrition Facts" that can relay unrealistic serving sizes to make products appear healthier than they really are.

The first products from Kellogg's will include its "ready-to-eat" packages of cereal, and the new nutrition banners will include calorie, fat, sugar and sodium content in addition to RDA information compared to what an adult would eat in terms of mineral amounts. I have to give Kellogg's credit here. This is a great first step and others should replicate it soon.

Source

Are those helpful (and tricky) "Nutrition Facts" labels headed to an alcoholic container near you? Possibly, if the U.S. Treasury Department gets its way. It's interesting here that the U.S. Treasury Department is the organization considering this, and not a food-related federal department.

That federal department is considering a new rule that would require companies to put content, serving sizes and related nutrition information on alcoholic drink packaging.

Since drinks from beer to wine to spirits do contain calories and do have an affect on the human body (duh!), this makes sense I believe. Are you for it? Do you really want to know how many calories are in those beer bottles?

Source

I'm a food label addict. Unless I'm familiar with a product, I don't buy anything without reading the label first. I even have my son reading labels -- "13 grams of sugar, mom! We can't get that!" Packaging claims can be too confusing -- the labels are the most reliable source of information. But the labels themselves can be confusing, too. For example, sometimes serving sizes can be misleading. (Like toaster pastries (which are crap food in any serving size, of course) -- they're packaged two-by-two. But the serving size is one pastry. Who thought that up?) It turns out a lot of us are confused by nutrition labels. A recent survey showed 75% were a bit perplexed by nutrition labels.

Until you get used to reading all the ins and outs of food labels, it's best to simplify things a bit. Basically it's good to keep in mind what you want to avoid and what you want to look for. You want to minimize fats, cholesterol, and sodium and you want to get enough of fiber, vitamins, and minerals.

Source

Wouldn't it be nice to compare prices, specialties and other information from health care clinics to let consumers take charge of making their own health care decisions?

This is exactly what Minnesota has done, as its program of "Healthcare Facts" from that state's Blue Cross and Blue Shield is like a "nutrition label" resource that empowers the customer to shop for what kind of care suits them best.

Sure, there will be medical advocates who disagree with empowering the consumer, but any business strategy that democratizes information -- especially medical data -- is to be commended.

Source

Do you believe the details that are found on the "nutrition facts" labels on the foods you buy? I've been a little skeptical for a while, as manufacturers routinely change "serving size" suggestions on packages to claim that servings (the size of a walnut) have low fat and calories. Who eats meals the size of a walnut?

Anyway, a Canadian researcher has discovered that, in fact, nutrition labels are often inaccurate. His research included items like baby biscuits, breakfast waffles, pancake mix and chicken fingers. That's a pretty decent cross section of foods, right?

Canadian law even allows for a 20% discrepancy between reality and facts on nutrition labeling, something I find appalling. 20 percent? That is way over the line (5 percent should be maximum). As always, if you're interested in your own health, proper research into your diet and nutrition is all that will help you. Sounding cynical? I am -- and I'm not even in Canada.

Source

Looks like the European Union is embarking on a two-year plan to best decide how to label foods from a "front of pack" perspective that will ensure customers really see what is inside all those foods they are buying and eating.

This would be a great move for the U.S. food industry as well, as marketers have taken over food packaging with bright, vibrant colors in many cases and advertising bullet points that are just slightly believable and at worst very misleading. Just moving the label to the front of packaging would be a great first step -- even a less-informative version.

Want to have a wake-up call the next time you are at the grocery store? Shop for your favorite foods and compare each using the "Nutrition Facts" label on each on. Compare serving size, ingredients, calories and saturated fat levels.

Source

In something I am completely for in the restaurant industry, a Philly-area lawmaker wants restaurant chains to post nutritional information on menus. Philadelphia already has banned smoking and transfat in local establishments, so that city known for artery-clogging cheesesteak sandwiches is making some major reversals in its public doctrine recently.

Now, freedom to eat anything you wish is an inalienable right to citizens of the U.S. -- but what this lawmaker is asking for is to post information on the nutrition content of restaurant items directly on menus. For consumers, this is a great suggestion, as the more information that's displayed, the more informed choice can be made, right?

For restaurants, many probably see this suggestion as a cause for revenue decline. If consumers knew how much fat and calories are in many dishes these days, many of them would probably not order some of those higher-margin meals. Is it all about the health of patrons or the margins one can make off patrons? That is the question.

Source

When reading through that latest issue of your favorite nutrition magazine, how certain are you that then accuracy of facts presented and the needs of advertisers (many with unhealthy products) are carefully balanced?

It's always a good idea to question the links between sponsors and the objectivity of information presented, and nowhere is this more important that a data repository (like a magazine) that gives readers nutritional advice. After all, what you put into your body is one of the most important things to pay attention to these days.

So, the next time you see articles in nutrition magazines (or health magazines) that seem out of place, it's not hard to question the editorial integrity on several fronts. Remember, nobody is watching out for your nutrition except yourself.

Source