However, the page also says they have sent their proposal to the White House for review. After they know what Obama thinks, I wonder how much our public input will really matter.
I suppose I couldn't argue if they ADDED teaspoons and kept grams, but the grams should not be removed. Are they going to change all the nutritional guidelines to teaspoons, like grams of carbs to teaspoons? There is no single density for these so it wouldn't be possible. Perhaps a footnote on translating grams of sugars and fats to teaspoons (or one could look at the nutrition label on the sugar and cooking oil.) I think the people who care enough about nutrition to use the info already understand it, and changing it will add a layer of confusion. The people who don't use it probably wouldn't use it if it were simplified to a green thumbs up to show it is good for you or a red thumbs down to show it is bad for you. Obviously, if they take the position calories are bad for you and you shouldn't consume any, you could starve to death following their advice. The subject is not completely amenable to oversimplification. ________________________________ From: James <j...@metricmethods.com> To: U.S. Metric Association <usma@colostate.edu> Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 7:00 PM Subject: [USMA:53525] Re: ANTI-METRIC ALERT: FDA MAY BE REMOVING GRAMS FROM NUTRITION LABELS, ADDING TEASPOONS According to: http://www.fda.gov/forconsumers/consumerupdates/ucm334749.htm the period for public comment has not yet opened. "The updates are still being formulated. Public input will be sought when they are proposed." Jim On 2014-01-23 13:49, c...@traditio.com wrote: > This is an issue that our USMA officers should jump upon to monitor > carefully monitor and to intervene with the FDA: the FDA is considering > revising the Nutrition Fact Labels on all food products. A Washington > Post article > (www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/fda-to-revise-nutrition-facts-label/2014/01/23/29e06204-8453-11e3-a273-6ffd9cf9f4ba_story.html) > indicates that: > > 1) Grams may be removed as a unit. > > 2) Serving sizes now given in grams may be replaced by the flawed > "teaspoon" that Paul Trusten as so often warned us against. > > Both of these flawed anti-metric ideas are being promoted by someone > named Michael Jacobson, who claims to run some group called Science in > the Public Interest. This Jacobson and his organization should be > checked out and educated in a personal conference by one of our > officers. Often these civic-sounding groups are fronts for another > agenda (anti-metric?). Science in the public interest is to use metric! > > This might be a good opportunity to Lorelle Young or Paul Trusten (whom > I have copied in to this message) to get an education article in The > Washington Post. The Nutrition Facts Labels are seen by hundreds of > million. To lose this pro-metric tool would be horrible. > > Martin Morrison > USMA Today "Metric Training and Education" Columnist > > > >
