http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-35199889 Or they could just do something amazing... like READ THE F*CKING PACKET /rant
The bloody morons who don't "READ THE F*CKING PACKET" also won't use the app or, if they do, won't be able to understand it.
I think its a good idea. My current thinking is that people have a hard time understanding that which they cannot directly relate to in tangible terms. A gram measurement of sugar is difficult to relate to. 50g of my cereal has 10g of sugar in it, but I have no idea what that looks like in teaspoons. I had to look it up on Google to find out that it is around 2.5 teaspoons. Which is 4 grams per teaspoon. The sugar measurement is also mixed in with the carbohydrate measurement which doesn't help either. You then have to realise that the following represents your average persons maths skills: If it helps the average person who doesn't like thinking to understand what they are eating in simple tangible terms, then its a good thing. As always, Carlin preached the truth.
How about the traffic light system? It's on most packaging these days, and pretty unambiguous. You're right that many people struggle to understand information that they cannot relate to in tangible terms (although abstract thought develops after the 12th year of age, the average person doesn't get much beyond that). But people are not only a bit dumb, they are also a bit lazy. Unless the information is right there on the packet most people are not going to reference an app. And above all, people like to avoid discomfort. If it's easier to get little Timmy to shut up and eat, they'll just shrug and carry on and assume that it will all be alright in the end. Tabloids are always scaremongering, aren't they?
Its not bad. The problem of course is that it is in the hands of the manufacturer to represent their product accurately. For example I remember looking at something like this on a 500ml coke bottle and of course it was laid out for two 250ml servings, rather than what the values are for a single bottle. I don't think I've seen someone split a 500ml bottle or not consume them entirely in one sitting. Its clearly a poor attempt to mask the level of sugar in their product from consumers. It's also a factor that could be overlooked at a glance. Since businesses can never be trusted to operate in an honourable fashion, especially when what's good for the business conflicts with what is good for their consumers (something which really holds true in the food industry) having a third party keeping track of values and presenting them simply and easily is very beneficial. I also think its important to research what the actual average portion size people like to give themselves is. Usually the nutritional information will be given against a smaller portion size. 30g of cornflakes is not a lot of cornflakes. Again only a third party would do something like this.
If people need their hands holding that much and things explained at a kindergarten level they should be locked up for their own safety.
Downloaded the app for a laugh, apparently my box of 450g sugar on my desk contains 110.5 sugar cubes or 442g of sugar, I want my 8g of sugar!
The traffic light system works relative to portion size, so that slight of hand wouldn't work. Although that is true in terms of what is listed on the packet should reflect what is inside the packet, there is a limit to how far a government service can go in taking responsibility for people's own choices and behaviours. The packet lists the contents; it is up to the consumer to read them. People massively overestimate their portions sizes (for fun, weigh your average meal against recommended port in size. You may be amazed). 30g is actually the recommended portion of cornflakes. Consumers complain that the information is too difficult. When asked to elaborate (research by British Heart Foundation) they complain that they didn't realise the amount of fat/sugar was per portion size rather than per whole packet --even though it said so on the packet, or that they couldn't make sense of grams, portions and units and that there should be one clear system. Setting aside that everybody should know how to cook, and anyone who knows how to cook should be able to make sense of, like, measuring and weighing portions, these complaints again squarely put the responsibility with the food producer/seller and with the government, and none with the customer. They say stuff like: "Some of them are really difficult to work out. Some are grams, some are portions, some per unit. You need a calculator....sometimes I just give up." No, you shouldn't give up; you should work that stuff out. It's your health after all, and the health of your children. But nobody goes: "Hey, I'm getting a bit chubby here, and my kids shouldn't be getting teeth problems at age six, so let's get a grip on what we're actually eating here. Let's try and make sense of what all these figures mean. After all, I've got my smartphone. I've got a tablet. Hell, my kids have got a tablet. Let's fire up the old Google and find some of the many fine, easily accessible and colourful websites that government and charities alike publish all over the place to teach us concerned parents and citizens about healthy eating". Nobody is taking any ownership over their own health and bodies.
Sort of, in that it can indicate areas of concern. But RDA values and calories are portion dependent. Really, the only thing I am advocating is info based on the reality of consumption and not some ideal, such as a 30g serving of cereal or 250ml of coke. If the average punter has 80g of cereal and washes it down with 500ml of coke that is how the information should be given. I don't think that is asking people to forgo personal responsibility. It just means they don't have to get out the weighing scales and calculator at breakfast because their consumption (which may very well be typical) isn't in-line with some ideal (which is probably the smallest portion size a manufacturer can get away with).
Just give me the concentrations per 100g, and the mass of the whole product. WTF would I do with the number of teaspoons of sugar?
Perhaps this should be moved to a different thread. I have an interest in the topic here as I am reading about it at the minute. There is a deception from big food companies about the amount of sugars in food. There is no regulation or control, the systems in place are completely voluntary and as such open to the abuse of portion size etc. IT is of course up to the individual to be aware of what they are consuming, however things like fruit juice, or smoothies are often as bad for you(in terms of sugar content) as coke. To most people a fruit juice is a healthy choice...
If a 500ml bottle of fizzy drink of your choice is two servings of 250ml, why are cans of the same fizzy drink 330ml? Surely they should be shrunk down to 250ml.
The have, sort of - the 250ml cans of coke are becoming more prevalent and the 330ml ones are [slowly] disappearing.
If more orange and red shows than green: food = bad for you, regardless of quantity. We don't know how much the average punter eats. We only know how much they should be eating, which is what the ideal portions are based on (which have been determined by nutritionists, not manufacturers). If someone notices that their waistline is expanding then perhaps they need to reflect on whether their portion size corresponds to the one on the packet and perhaps should break out the scales and calculator to check.
Yes, I get it the colours are based on a ratio rather than an absolute value. However that doesn't change the fact that the rest of the information on the label you posted, that is GDA and calorie values are dependent on the portion. I know we don't know how much people are actually eating. That is why I said it should be researched. I also know that all foods can't be covered. But those that are impacting the most and those that are most commonly used should be focused upon. Telling someone the nutritional value of what they should be eating rather than what they are eating is essentially useless information. Especially if they notice their waist expanding. Although telling them recommended portion size is useful. A label stating the most likely amount of the food eaten and the associated nutritional value of that portion along with what the recommended portion size should be, is much more useful. Also who employs these dieticians that decide what the portion size is? Would it be the manufacturer?
And then they need to include more pertinent info; good fat v's bad fat, good sugars v's bad sugars along with the likely impact on your body depending on when you consume them and probable impact on blood sugars for the diabetics and pregnant mothers. Or we don't need more nanny state diktats , just go back to the old mantra of everything in moderation.
Ive only ever seen the 250ml cans of Redbull, goggled them they look odd by then anything like that would.
Ultimately the information is always highly generalised. Fitting to the average rarely represents any one single data point. You are right though, the label info is not enough everyone must know their own requirements. I'm not advocating a lack of personal responsibility, just labeling that is more in tune with reality. I googled a snickers bar wrapper ealier. The calories were stated as one of two portions. I mean come on.
