It seems that those FDA regulators aren't much pleased with those labels that they've been regulating them for the past 20+ years. So, they want to "re-regulate" the labels because they are "out of date," meaning in plain English that the FDA regulators want calorie and serving size information to be more visible on food packages. In addition, they want producers to include a new line that identifies "added sugars" in a product.
It's likely a directive emanating from the Office of the Chief of the Food Police, Michelle Obama, as part of her much-touted "signature" but more "significant failure" "Let's Move" campaign. The goal is for the federal government--through the FDA--to regulate the eating habits of Americans, beginning with the children in the nation's public schools and expanding eventually every kitchen in the USA.
So, believing that Americans eat more food today than they used to--which is probably accurate--and, consequently, the calories and serving sizes on today's packages often don't match up with what Americans actually eat--that's also probably accurate--the FDA regulators have decided to update those nutrition labels in an effort to improve the nation's public health.
It sounds all so "caring," doesn't it? Sort of like a "Nanny State."
According to a Heartland Institute study, there is no evidence that those labels will improve the nation's public health. Yet, despite this fact, the FDA regulators are going to spend at least $2.3B to implement the new nutrition labels.
Who's going to pay for it? Not those in the food industry who are required to change package sizes, suppliers who must keep records of added sugars, or the cost of enforcement. Those costs will be transferred to the nation's consumers in the form of higher food prices.
Perhaps the real goal of the Food Police is to starve the poor into submission.
Let the dicussion begin...
To read the Heartland Institute study, click on the following link:
"Value of New Nutritional Labels Questioned."