McFadden and Lusk, in their recent paper in FASEB Journal, What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food and how that affects beliefs:
New data collected from a nationwide U.S. survey reveal low levels of knowledge and numerous misperceptions about GM food. Nearly equal numbers of consumers prefer mandatory labeling of foods containing DNA as do those preferring mandatory labeling of GM foods.
Perhaps the survey captured an inordinate number of Food Babe acolytes.
That exclamation point is not an accident. I’m looking forward to this. From the FDA:
Today, the FDA has finalized the new Nutrition Facts label on packaged foods with changes that will make it easier for consumers to make informed choices about what they’re eating.
Some groups aren’t too happy with the change:
The Sugar Association is disappointed by the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) ruling to require an “added sugars” declaration and daily reference value (DRV) on the Nutrition Facts Label (NFL). The extraordinary contradictions and irregularities, as well as the lack of scientific justification in this rulemaking process are unprecedented for the FDA.
But the FDA says:
And you can have confidence in the science on which it is based, including evidence used to support the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, nutrition intake recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, and nutrition intake information from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES).
Whose interpretation of science is correct? Well, the Sugar Association is likely a little biased.
Shirley Cramer, chief executive of the Royal Society for Public Health – Food should be labelled with the exercise needed to expend its calories:
The Royal Society for Public Health has called for the introduction of “activity equivalent” calorie labelling, with symbols showing how many minutes of several different physical activities are equivalent in the calories expended to those in the product. The aim is to prompt people to be more mindful of the energy they consume and how these calories relate to activities in their everyday lives, to encourage them to be more physically active.
As reported by the CBC, not everyone is a fan of this approach:
Not everybody is sold on the idea. Dr. Yoni Freedhoff is the medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute in Ottawa.
“People believe that exercise is the ticket to the weight loss express,” he said.
But, in fact, exercise doesn’t burn that many calories.
I believe Dr. Freedhoff is correct. Labelling foods with exercise equivalents is not the right message, and mixes up the idea of weight loss with exercise, when they are not well linked at all.
From what I’ve been reading, exercise is key for reducing your risk of dying early due to cadriovascular disease. With better fitness you also reduce your risk of physical injuries. However, the amount of exercise you do is not well correlated to your weight. Meaning that you cannot realistically exercise enough to reduce your weight if you are consuming the same amount of calories.
– More exercise => better fitness and live longer
– Fewer calories => lose weight
See Dr. Freedhoff’s talk on the issue: