Mostly, I wish the
money/effort being put into labels on packages was instead directed
toward getting people to eat food that doesn't come in packages.
We do live in the
real world, however, and even my family (one that strives to eat as
much whole foods as we can), buys snacks, bread, condiments, and
other things, in packages. And, I'm glad the labels are there. But,
mostly I read the labels for ingredients. When I buy a snack for my
5-year-old, I don't care about the calories. I care that there's not
a ton of sugar and food coloring. He needs calories, but they need to
be quality calories.
On the other hand,
many people who are not skinny, active 5-year-olds, would benefit
greatly from eating fewer calories. But, is changing the way they are
labeled on packages the answer? I tend to think not. While limiting
the calories consumed is definitely something many people need to be
concerned with, if people are using the information on labels to
count their daily intake, they are able to do the math to figure out
how many calories are in multiple servings -- regardless of the size
of the serving, or the size of the font the calorie count is written
in.
There are other
changes on the label, too … Does added sugars vs. sugars that
naturally occur in foods make a difference? I think so, and I like
this addition to the labels. Even if eating the same amount of
naturally occurring sugar has the same impact on your health as
eating added sugar (which I suspect it doesn't), putting the amount
of added sugar in black and white will be an eye opener for many
consumers.
Swapping out
Vitamins A and C to add potassium and magnesium? Ummm … Seems like
a six of one and half-dozen of another scenario. Why don't we just
list the nutrients that are present and leave off the ones that
aren't? That seems like it would give the label the most value.