Supermarkets cry foul as FDA proposes new food labeling rule under ObamaCare

[IGotWorms 3,315]

When I go to to a restaurant and buy a Grilled Chicken and Pasta dish (for example) I might not of thought it was all that bad for me. But maybe they sautee the Chicken in a pound of butter before slapping it on the grill. Maybe they add oils to the pasta so it wont stick. Maybe they don't make their sauce fresh like they imply, but used canned sauce that has like 1500mg of sodium in it. And by the the time they put it all together this little Grilled Chicken and Whole Wheat Pasta dish they have under the "Good for you" menue items has like 60% of your daily intake of saturated fat and like 2000mg of sodium in it.

 

You can't be educated on the ingredients a restaurant used in a dish uless they tell you.

 

This, exactly.

 

When I was in college, I would eat at Panda Express a lot because many of their dishes have relatively few calories. Well then one day somebody told me to look at the sodium levels in the nutritional information. Holy focking God. A meal there will easily get you 2000mg of sodium. Eating like that regularly could kill you, no joke.

 

Not saying I thought Panda Express was "healthy", but I had no idea how unhealthy it is. I probably would've never figured that out if it weren't for food labeling requirements.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

I suspect the main reason they're against it is that most of the stuff you can buy in a supermarket deli is horrible as hell for you.

....and /thread

 

same reason fast food joints fought it tooth and nail

[KSB2424 3,083]

This is just an extension of the mandate to label store bought items such as frozen chicken, a can of soup or a box of oreo's. And that mandate has been great. Consumers can pick up a box of whatever and look (educate themselves) on what is in and what the nutritional value is of the item they are buying. This is espcecially important to people with diabites, food allergies, heart disease and other issues. However not only those folks but all of us who want to know what we put in our bodies. Having restaurants and any person that prepares a food do the same is just doubling down on a great idea.

 

I'm normally not for gov't intervention in most cases, but when its a good thing and has to do with either eduction, citizen/consumer protection, national defense, or infrastruture then I'm ususally for it. Those four things I do think are part of govt's role.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

so now I'm going all GFIAFP here, but so be it.

 

Lemme' 'splain what happens at the grocery store once this Law gets passes:

 

The Gov'mt claims they helped the "regular" people and did their jobs.

The Corporations claim that they need to charge more to the regualr people to cover the costs.

 

Meanwhile, some guy making 35k/year at a sh!tty retail job is told he has to compile all the ingredients and look up all the nutritional information of the Chicken Wings he just cooked. This task is just added to his daily chores and in between waiting on customers and cooking the chicken, he adds us the Trans fat and Protein on a spread sheet; the employee is not given any extra time or pay to get the extra task done.

 

It doesn't actually cost the store more, they just whipped an employee harder with threats of transfers to stores with longer commutes and/or demotion and undesireable work hours.

 

In the end, the middle class worker gets it worse, the middle class consumer pays more, the Corporation makes more profit b/c they charge more, and the Government pursues it's next great Crusade to "help the people".

 

Dude, they're not going to compile new nutritional information every day. They do it once based on an optimum amount of ingredients in the dish. The actual information may vary on any given day depending on how they make it on that day, but the general information will be close enough to give you an accurate idea of what you're consuming.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

....and /thread

 

same reason fast food joints fought it tooth and nail

 

It works too, for all but the completely oblivious. I've lived in cities that required fast food labeling right on the menu before the feds took up the cause. If I walk into a McDonalds, I know I'm not getting something healthy. But when I have to literally see right there on the menu that I'm about to consume 1200 calories, 70 grams of fat and 2,000 mg of sodium, I turn around and walk right the fock out the door.

[DankNuggs 305]

Corporations hate it when they're told that they can't continue to fock over the people in a way that maximizes profits.

 

See also: Wall Street, 2008.

 

The mandate that a corporation's primary obligation is to its shareholders, and that that obligation invariably means taking unethical advantage of the customers, is why capitalism will always be, at its heart, an evil ideology. Thank Goddess creeping socialism is here to help grant us a protective buffer from the Krogers, Monsantos, and Chase Banks of the world.

The beauty of freedom and not being bound to a totalitarian society that dictates how you think, how you act, and what you consume is that if customers don't feel they are getting value from a product or service, they can find another one.

[hoytdwow 202]

The beauty of freedom and not being bound to a totalitarian society that dictates how you think, how you act, and what you consume is that if customers don't feel they are getting value from a product or service, they can find another one.

Slow down, Ayn Rand. All this wants to do is let people know what it is they're consuming. Then they can decide if they want it or not.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

How does this improve our healthcare delivery system exactly?

[DankNuggs 305]

This is just an extension of the mandate to label store bought items such as frozen chicken, a can of soup or a box of oreo's. And that mandate has been great. Consumers can pick up a box of whatever and look (educate themselves) on what is in and what the nutritional value is of the item they are buying. This is espcecially important to people with diabites, food allergies, heart disease and other issues. However not only those folks but all of us who want to know what we put in our bodies. Having restaurants and any person that prepares a food do the same is just doubling down on a great idea.

 

I'm normally not for gov't intervention in most cases, but when its a good thing and has to do with either eduction, citizen/consumer protection, national defense, or infrastruture then I'm ususally for it. Those four things I do think are part of govt's role.

If you are diabetic, or incredibly fat and on a diet, don't buy the deli chicken salad slathered in mayo, or the pasta salad, or the tuna salad... Its common sense that stuff is horrible for you.

 

I'm fine with the nurtrional information being mandated tho, its a good thing and people should know what they are buying.

 

'That ain't no SALAD when its covered in POTATO SALAD' - Funny Guy commenting on other guy at the salad bar at lunch the other week

[Phurfur 70]

How does this improve our healthcare delivery system exactly?

What do student loans have to do with health care?

 

A provision neatly tucked into the massive health care law is an effective nationalization of the student loan industry. Obamacare ends government subsidies to private lenders and puts the federal government in charge of originating and servicing federally backed student loans

 

What do 4,000 IRS agents have to do with health care?

[DankNuggs 305]

Slow down, Ayn Rand. All this wants to do is let people know what it is they're consuming. Then they can decide if they want it or not.

just responding to doofus's critique of capitalism... Its been the mechanism for providing the highest quality of life in the history of the world.

 

These socialists are intellectually infected with Munchausens

[IGotWorms 3,315]

If you are diabetic, or incredibly fat and on a diet, don't buy the deli chicken salad slathered in mayo, or the pasta salad, or the tuna salad... Its common sense that stuff is horrible for you.

 

I'm fine with the nurtrional information being mandated tho, its a good thing and people should know what they are buying.

 

That's all this is.

 

Look, if the White House came out and said "fast foods and deli foods are awful for people and they put a tremendous burden on our healthcare system, so for the good of the nation we are going to ban them", I would oppose that. It *would* be good for the nation, but at far too great a cost to individual liberty.

 

What they're doing here is saying, let's put the information out there and let people decidefor themselves. I see no problem with that whatsoever.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

 

 

What do 4,000 IRS agents have to do with health care?

They are there to collect the ObamaTax.

[nikki2200 4]

When I go to to a restaurant and buy a Grilled Chicken and Pasta dish (for example) I might not of thought it was all that bad for me. But maybe they sautee the Chicken in a pound of butter before slapping it on the grill. Maybe they add oils to the pasta so it wont stick. Maybe they don't make their sauce fresh like they imply, but used canned sauce that has like 1500mg of sodium in it. And by the the time they put it all together this little Grilled Chicken and Whole Wheat Pasta dish they have under the "Good for you" menue items has like 60% of your daily intake of saturated fat and like 2000mg of sodium in it.

 

You can't be educated on the ingredients a restaurant used in a dish uless they tell you.

 

I'm actually way more likely to eat out at a restaurant that actually puts the nutrition information on the menu - I mean for lunches and things. I would eat at Panera over most other places because I am aware of how many calories are in what I am ordering. New York City requires every food service business with more than 2 stores publish their nutrition information and most people in NYC love that. It also encourages the restaurants to keep the calories and fat down because there's a good chance if it's right out there how bad it is for you, people won't order it.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

What do student loans have to do with health care?

 

A provision neatly tucked into the massive health care law is an effective nationalization of the student loan industry. Obamacare ends government subsidies to private lenders and puts the federal government in charge of originating and servicing federally backed student loans

 

What do 4,000 IRS agents have to do with health care?

 

Student loans have nothing to do with healthcare.

 

But IRS agents? Well obviously that's to monitor and enforce the tax provisions in Obamacare.

[DankNuggs 305]

Dude, they're not going to compile new nutritional information every day. They do it once based on an optimum amount of ingredients in the dish. The actual information may vary on any given day depending on how they make it on that day, but the general information will be close enough to give you an accurate idea of what you're consuming.

New thing is people suing based on the fact what they consume doesn't match the nutrional information. Bigger portion or slightly different ingrediant amounts in recipes...

 

These nurtional info are representations as to what you are eating. Our moocher, loser, frivilous lawsuit society will love to take this up.

[Phurfur 70]

Student loans have nothing to do with healthcare.

 

But IRS agents? Well obviously that's to monitor and enforce the tax provisions in Obamacare.

 

Correct, that is my point! They will be coming after the 7 million that lose their insurance.

[Lackman 0]

This is just an extension of the mandate to label store bought items such as frozen chicken, a can of soup or a box of oreo's. And that mandate has been great. Consumers can pick up a box of whatever and look (educate themselves) on what is in and what the nutritional value is of the item they are buying. This is espcecially important to people with diabites, food allergies, heart disease and other issues. However not only those folks but all of us who want to know what we put in our bodies. Having restaurants and any person that prepares a food do the same is just doubling down on a great idea.

 

I'm normally not for gov't intervention in most cases, but when its a good thing and has to do with either eduction, citizen/consumer protection, national defense, or infrastruture then I'm ususally for it. Those four things I do think are part of govt's role.

 

It is not the role of government to force a business into the type of packaging it's product can be sold in. It's the same deal as when the government does not allow a bar owner the option of smoking and non smoking environment. If the product is not dangerous to the consumer, then it's just meddling.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

New thing is people suing based on the fact what they consume doesn't match the nutrional information. Bigger portion or slightly different ingrediant amounts in recipes...

 

These nurtional info are representations as to what you are eating. Our moocher, loser, frivilous lawsuit society will love to take this up.

 

I'm skeptical that you even can sue based on federally mandated nutritional information. I highly doubt these laws give rise to a private right of action. Enforcement is between the FDA and food sellers, not individual consumers and sellers.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Correct, that is my point!

Well then your point is fockin stupid, as usual.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I'm skeptical that you even can sue based on federally mandated nutritional information.

I find it strange that anytime a 'lawyer' comments on anything related to the law, he gets it wrong.

 

 

 

 

General Mills settles lawsuit over its Fruit Roll-Ups label

 

 

FBR Staff Writer

Published 27 December 2012

US-based food company General Mills and consumer watchdog group Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) have settled a lawsuit over the company's Fruit Roll-Ups product label.

 

According to the settlement, the company will have to revise the labeling of its strawberry-flavored Fruit Roll-Ups by mentioning that the product does not contain any natural strawberries, reported Startribune.com.

 

The settlement includes only strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups, and not other flavors or Fruit by the Foot snacks.

 

Last year, a Californian consumer filed a case with the help of CSPI, which monitors and takes up food labeling issues.

 

In the lawsuit, the consumer alleged the company incorrectly claimed on the labelling that the product was "made with real fruit" where as the snacks' ingredients comprises pears from concentrate, rather than actual strawberry.

 

The consumer group had said that strawberry Fruit Roll-Ups' label actually misled consumers about the fruit content.

 

http://www.food-business-review.com/news/general-mills-settles-lawsuit-over-its-fruit-roll-ups-label-281212

[nikki2200 4]

Oh dear god.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

I find it strange that anytime a 'lawyer' comments on anything related to the law, he gets it wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.food-business-review.com/news/general-mills-settles-lawsuit-over-its-fruit-roll-ups-label-281212

 

Were there money damages? Because that's what Dank was speculating about.

 

And was that under state or federal law? Your article does not say.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

true.

but individuals don't like Regulations either... we'd all prefere to be unsupervised and do whatever the fock we wanted.

 

And here's the problem:

The Corporations only goal is to make money - they will fock you, me, the environment, our kids and any/everything to achieve that goal. So there needs to be some regulation.

 

The Government is no match for the ruthless efficiencies of the Corporations, and despite their efforts to do the right things "For The People" they fock it up by blowing every budget and failing to achieve any goals.

 

That leaves The People, getting focked by the Corporations and continually sending more and more resources to the ineffective Government in an attempt to stop the focking; and essentially, The People are just getting focked from both ends.

A Corportion's job is to provide something useful to the consumer. If you wish to paint them as evil and greedy (as the leftist utopia does)you may, but unless they provide a useful product, they die (unless of course they are one of Harry Reid's enviro ripoff fronts). The Government's regulation problem stems from the fact that they are woefully disorganized and 100% reactionary. They know they want something, are unsure of exactly what or how much it will cost, but they want it now. The US people fock themselves because they have no self control, are incredibly spoiled and have given the government a mandate to take care of them.

[RLLD 3,455]

just responding to doofus's critique of capitalism... Its been the mechanism for providing the highest quality of life in the history of the world.

 

These socialists are intellectually infected with Munchausens

 

Don't be too starry eyed, we also know that it focuses the highest quality of life to a select few......

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Were there money damages? Because that's what Dank was speculating about.

 

And was that under state or federal law? Your article does not say.

He said nothing about money damages.

 

You said you thought only the Gubmint can bring lawsuits based on labeling.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Don't be too starry eyed, we also know that it focuses the highest quality of life to a select few......

 

Wouldn't any system, though? Under communism, you get privileges if you're connected with the state. Under capitalism, you get privileges if you're connected to private finance. Personally I'd rather have the latter, as it is at least more open.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

He said nothing about money damages.

 

You said you thought only the Gubmint can bring lawsuits based on labeling.

 

He said moochers. Moochers bring suit to get money, not for some altruistic goal of getting the label changed for accuracy.

 

There is a huge legal difference between suits for injunctive relief and suits for money damages, so it is an important distinction.

 

Was it under state or federal law?

[DankNuggs 305]

Don't be too starry eyed, we also know that it focuses the highest quality of life to a select few......

Compare the quality of life of a 'poor' person in america versus any other country/continent on earth.

 

A poor person in america lives a higher quality of life than most people in the world.

[RLLD 3,455]

Compare the quality of life of a 'poor' person in america versus any other country/continent on earth.

 

A poor person in america lives a higher quality of life than most people in the world.

 

True.

 

But do you realize the destruction our government brought to the world to enable this? Do you realize that capitalism without morality is cannibalism?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

He said moochers. Moochers bring suit to get money, not for some altruistic goal of getting the label changed for accuracy.

 

There is a huge legal difference between suits for injunctive relief and suits for money damages, so it is an important distinction.

 

Was it under state or federal law?

Dude, it was the first one to come up. It proved your position that only the Govt can sue to be total BS.

 

Here, educate youself, Matlock. There are a sh!t-ton of examples.

 

ConAgra Sued Over GMO ’100% Natural’ Cooking Oils

BY MICHELE SIMON | AUGUST 24, 2011

OPINION

If you use Wesson brand cooking oils, you may be able to join a class action against food giant ConAgra for deceptively marketing the products as natural.

 

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/conagra-sued-over-gmo-100-natural-cooking-oils/#.URPp8aXoSJg

 

Nutella Lawsuit Latest Reminder to Question Health Claims, Read Food Labels

 

By Drew Taylor | Yahoo! Contributor Network – Sat, Apr 28, 2012

Email

Share3

Print

COMMENTARY | Ferrero, the maker of Nutella, this week settled two suits regarding its chocolate hazelnut spread. According to the New York Daily News, Ferrero agreed to pay more than $3 million to consumers nationwide and will modify its marketing, website, label, and certain claims.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nutella-lawsuit-latest-reminder-health-claims-read-food-134000452--finance.html

[DankNuggs 305]

He said moochers. Moochers bring suit to get money, not for some altruistic goal of getting the label changed for accuracy.

 

There is a huge legal difference between suits for injunctive relief and suits for money damages, so it is an important distinction.

 

Was it under state or federal law?

I'm right, you are wrong. Perhaps you can become an early adopter from the legal side, get your name on the spine of the phonebook and sokolove it up John edwards style.

[DankNuggs 305]

Dude, it was the first one to come up. It proved your position that only the Govt can sue to be total BS.

 

Here, educate youself, Matlock. There are a sh!t-ton of examples.

 

 

 

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/conagra-sued-over-gmo-100-natural-cooking-oils/#.URPp8aXoSJg

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nutella-lawsuit-latest-reminder-health-claims-read-food-134000452--finance.html

Thanks for the research RP... I thought it was as common sense as the deli chicken salad being terrible for you...

[TD Ryan2 314]

Dude, they're not going to compile new nutritional information every day. They do it once based on an optimum amount of ingredients in the dish. The actual information may vary on any given day depending on how they make it on that day, but the general information will be close enough to give you an accurate idea of what you're consuming.

I get that.

The point is the "cost" will be passed on to the consumer at an inflated cost b/c the worker will just be pushed more thereby reducing the costs.

[RLLD 3,455]

I get that.

The point is the "cost" will be passed on to the consumer at an inflated cost b/c the worker will just be pushed more thereby reducing the costs.

 

The government wraps another tentacle around society, forcing business to raise costs to then allow the wider swath of society to subsidize the stupidity of a few, more government = more costs....ever more costs.......eliminate tort law, costs drop right away

[TD Ryan2 314]

A Corportion's job is to provide something useful to the consumer. If you wish to paint them as evil and greedy

sorry Timmy, I stopped there man.

I do not suggest Corps are evil but their job is not to provide something useful - their job is to make money. The Bottom Line is all that truly matters with a Corporation. This is not evil. This is what a Coroporation is/does though and to pretend otherwise is naive.

 

Sure corporations can do good and bad things... but in the end they are truly neutral beholden only to profits.

 

Useful products?

Community Service?

 

only if it improves profits.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Dude, it was the first one to come up. It proved your position that only the Govt can sue to be total BS.

 

Here, educate youself, Matlock. There are a sh!t-ton of examples.

 

 

 

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/08/conagra-sued-over-gmo-100-natural-cooking-oils/#.URPp8aXoSJg

 

 

 

http://news.yahoo.com/nutella-lawsuit-latest-reminder-health-claims-read-food-134000452--finance.html

 

Your examples prove nothing. First off they are settlements, so for all we know the question of whether plaintiffs could actually sue was never confronted. Second, they don't say whether the suits are based in FDA labeling requirements or if they are based on state requirements or sound in tort or are contract actions. Precision is very important in the legal world.

 

G0ddammit now you're gonna make me do some research.

[titans&bucs&bearsohmy! 2,745]

I would point out, restaurants have been doing this for years. And the profit margin in a restaurant is pretty razor thin as well, and there is infinitely more competition.

 

If you are going to sell something that is ingested, it needs to have the ingredients and nutritional info on it. If you can't afford to do that, then you can't afford to sell did.

[IGotWorms 3,315]

Alright, bam, look it up motherfocker: Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Thompson, US Supreme Court 1986.

 

"Congress did not intend a private cause of action for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act"

 

Just like I thought. Now I'm gonna send you a focking bill

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Alright, bam, look it up motherfocker: Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals v Thompson, US Supreme Court 1986.

 

"Congress did not intend a private cause of action for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act"

 

Just like I thought. Now I'm gonna send you a focking bill

Someone should tell all the parties involved in all these lawsuits, Mr. 1986.