Subscribe: Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Health labels and symbols
http://usfoodpolicy.blogspot.com/feeds/2314443638861300280/comments/default
Preview: Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Health labels and symbols

Comments on U.S. Food Policy: Health labels and symbols





Updated: 2017-12-04T23:17:47.618-05:00

 



Interesting. On a distantly-related yet coincident...

2008-01-31T03:03:00.000-05:00

Interesting. On a distantly-related yet coincidental note, Nestle Corp. is one food company that has tried to study the Muslim world's halal standards for food in order to make products geared towards that exacting market segment.
fitness and health resources



Enough of the details were released to reveal that...

2008-01-24T17:16:00.000-05:00

Enough of the details were released to reveal that it's ridiculously complicated. I doubt many people would be interested in seeing the whole thing unless they are Ph.D. candidates!

I think where they go wrong is in the belief that it's better because it includes "more nutrients" than previous nutrient density rankings. This is like the "our amp goes to 11" line in Spinal Tap. Since it's a single dimensional ranking number, the more you put in it, the more diluted the consideration of other factors is.

And they attempt to weigh the importance of minor nutrients by how much effect they have on health. It would seem if a nutrient were a minor nutrient and it doesn't have much of an effect on health compared to others, you should just omit it.

I think if you include just a few nutrients that are mostly vegetable sourced, they act as proxies for the minor nutrients, and that is enough. If you're influenced to eat more veggies by a ranking system, you'll do O.K.

At any rate, malnutrition is hardly the problem in the U.S. Just putting calories on foods and using a simple rule like Michael Pollan's is probably enough.