Michelle Obama: America's Moms Are 'Confused and Bewildered,' 'Defeated' by Grocery Shopping

reply to post by KeliOnyx


Seriously? If a can contains 4 servings, and each serving is 175 calories and you eat the whole can you cannot figure out in seconds flat how many calories you just ate?

Seriously?

Michelle Obama thinks you are so stupid you cannot make a quick calculation in your head.

if a can contains 10% daily allowance of vitamin A and there are 4 servings in a can, then that can, if you eat it all, wont even give you half the daily allowance you need, so you will have to make up your vitamin A somewhere else, with a different food that is high in Vitamin A.

Cooked Sweet Potatoes, dark greens, squash, apricots are all high in this vitamin. You also need it to fight many infections, have good immune system, and lowers cancer risk...

If people don't know these things without giving much thought, then they need some nutrition classes. If you cannot add and subtract, you need some math classes. What we DON'T need are dumbed down nutrition labels.

reply to post by neo96


No it doesn't. Without looking it up tell me what carragenin is ? What about diglicerides do you know what that is or what it's in. Cellulose, what do we find that in? Your education didn't cover this stuff.
Schools taught the four food groups when I was in school. Now they go more into the details but back then it was pretty basic stuff. My parents didn't get any education on nutrition when they were in the school system in the 30s and 40s.
Carragenin is a chemical thickener that makes things feel creamy in you mouth. We find it in cream and ice cream and puddings. Diglicerides are conditioners that also improve the feel of food in your mouth. Cellulose is wood fiber and its in crackers and candy bars and those veggy burgers health nuts seem to think are so good for you. But you need to seek that info the labels list it but don't say what it is or what it does. No label is ever going to make it completely easy but clearer labels might at least help us make better choices. Moms probably don't want to feed their kids toxins but they are in there and the label doesn't tell you that.

Ima gonna get me an I survived the Obama administration tee shirt.

reply to post by FlyersFan



And btw michelle, in case you haven't noticed, I can't afford groceries,

yours truly,
Confused and bewildered

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


You forgot about the limited budget!!

reply to post by AutumnWitch657

No it doesn't. Without looking it up tell me what carragenin is ? What about diglicerides do you know what that is or what it's in. Cellulose, what do we find that in? Your education didn't cover this stuff.

Why ?

Not the one claiming to be a 'food expert' in the thread.

I could really care less.

Unlike most Americans I am not scared of my own shadow about the food I eat.

reply to post by OpinionatedB


I'm not entirely sure what her plan is to change to the labels, but I assume it's a bit more in-depth than "this is/isn't good for you" added to the label. I think there should be more info on the labels, such as vitamin DV and GMO info.

And I do not think she was being condescending towards women.

reply to post by KeliOnyx

If you're going to be outraged about something please at least be outraged by things with real substance not just because you don't like the person talking about it.

I completely agree with your post and perhaps I am misunderstanding, but I am not outraged and this at all. In fact, I am defending the First Lady here. Or was that comment directed towards others in this conversation?

reply to post by AutumnWitch657


Didn't you notice they weren't overweight, thats because a paleo diet is better for you, and butter actually is better for you then margarine.

ohioriver
Dear Michelle Obama,
Are you really so dense as to believe women do not know how to shop for food? Just because you have isolated yourself from the real world does not mean the rest of us have the luxury of a staff of hundreds and an unlimited food budget. I dare you to go shop at Walmart ( you, not your staff) and stick to a budget of $125 for a week of food for a family of 4. Keep in mind you have to only buy your idea of healthy food. Just an FYI hint for you: Do not buy anything with soybean oil in it.And when you come back from shopping let us know how it went. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.

Sincerely,
US Taxpayer

Really ?

When was the last time Mrs Obama went shopping ?

At a Walmart or a Kroger etc.

Real world indeed.

Really how many Americans eat gourmet food at 'state' dinners, or have a kitchen staff that caters to that families every whim.

buster2010
CNS what FOX didn't have and article on this yet?

Ahhhh yes ... deflection. Sorry buster, but SHE SAID IT. The video is at the link.
It doesn't matter who reports it. The woman said it.

Looks like what she was saying went over many of the peoples heads in this thread.

Apparently you didn't read the transcript. She basically called the women in this country a bunch of haggard fools.

How many of you understand everything on the labels on the products you buy.

I can read them well enough to know what is good and what isn't. We aren't idiots. But then again ... maybe the people that she used to hang with are. Perhaps that's where she's getting this nonsense from.

AutumnWitch657
Oh brother you can think of the most trivial things to get offended by when it comes to the first family.

Oh brother you can dismiss everything nanny-state that Michelle and Obama try to push on us ... partisan much?

OpinionatedB
I do not want dumbed down nutrition labels that say things like; "this is good for you", I want to know how much riboflavin, iron, varying vitamins etc etc etc is in what I am purchasing.

There ya' go. Exactly. You know that'll be next from her. 'Ya'll need to eat what we say ... and disregard the fact that we are heavily invested in the companies putting out the food that we are telling you to eat'. It's how they are running the green energy companies.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

Really? Really you just went there? The genius that just gave us this rant without any knowledge at all about what the proposed changes were?

Well if she dare think to implement some kind of new policy to no longer have nicely broken down nutrition labels on packaging then I will go ballistic.

I do not want dumbed down nutrition labels that say things like; "this is good for you", I want to know how much riboflavin, iron, varying vitamins etc etc etc is in what I am purchasing.

I am not too stupid to read, and certainly not too stupid to trust what the government says is good or bad based on their word alone. I want to know exactly what I am buying.

She can shove her woman are too stupid to read a darn label where the sun does not reach.

The labeling can infact be difficult for anyone to understand, when planning out meals these are what is being addressed.

The Food and Drug Administration is proposing several changes to the nutrition labels you see on packaged foods and beverages. If approved, the new labels would place a bigger emphasis on total calories, added sugars and certain nutrients, such as Vitamin D and potassium.

The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler.

The proposed labels would remove the "calories from fat" line you currently see on labels, focusing instead on total calories found in each serving. Nutritionists have come to understand that the type of fat you're eating matters more than the calories from fat. As such, the breakdown of total fat vs. saturated and trans fat would remain.

The proposed labels would also note how much added sugar is in a product. Right now, it's hard to know what is naturally occurring sugar and what has been added by the manufacturer.

What Michelle really could do, if she wanted to be a little less Antoinette and a bit more helpful is take her husband by a part that would get his attention and kindly ask HIM to explain what the F in FDA stands for. Once upon a time it stood for food...but that just isn't clear anymore.

Insulting mothers who could very well handle the task if they weren't either working a job or two in making ends meet without her Husband's help....or increasingly caught in the trap the rest fall into at the Government's creation, just isn't helpful.

I could be meaner and say she views the world through a prism of her own life experiences...but I'll assume our First Lady is more sophisticated and intelligent than that.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


FDA's New Food Labels Would Focus on Calories, Sugar Content

Food makers could also include vitamins A and C, but they will no longer have to

"Bar none, the number of calories is the most important thing an individual can pay attention to when it comes to their diet," he said.

I call BS on them, what your nutritional intake is happens to be just as important, if not often moreso. People need the right nutrition, not just manage their caloric intake.

I must be in the minority here, cause I do not find her words to be condescending at all. If anything, I find it to be quite accurate.

I have tried to eat healthier. I have sat in a grocery isle reading labels. It is not easy and it is almost like another language the way they are written. I do not think she is saying people are too stupid to go grocery shopping, she is specifically talking about reading the labels.

Let me give everyone a very simple example. Can anyone tell me what this is or how healthy it is or is not?

Wheat Flour, Niacin, Iron (Ferrous Sulfate), Thiamine mononitrate, milk cheese culture, salt enzymesi, water, whey, caonla oil, sodium phosphate..... it goes on and on.

So what is it? Is it healthy? Is it not healthy? Are you clueless?

You probably should be, that was the ingredients in Macaroni and Cheese.

neo96
When was the last time Mrs Obama went shopping ?

When was the last time Mrs. Obama pulled a weed in 'her organic garden' at the White House?
It was left to rot when the 'sequestration' kicked in. Obviously it isn't her garden, it's a publicity stunt.
Maybe Michelle is blathering about moms not being able to shop, because she is clueless herself
and she thinks everyone else is as moronic as she is.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

What Michelle really could do, if she wanted to be a little less Antoinette and a bit more helpful is take her husband by a part that would get his attention and kindly ask HIM to explain what the F in FDA stands for. Once upon a time it stood for food...but that just isn't clear anymore.

Thank You !

Really why is the' first' lady and administration defenders doing the JOB of the FDA.

Makes no sense to me.

reply to post by FlyersFan

When was the last time Mrs. Obama pulled a weed in 'her organic garden' at the White House?

Never.

Guess she doesn't want to get them multi thousand dollar designer dresses, and shoes dirty.

Yes.. because it's soo difficult to tell if something is good for you or not...

Does the food item have its own TV commercial?.. Then it's probably not that healthy for you.

Does it contain a bunch of GMO ingredients, hydrogenated oils and MSG?.. not healthy for you.

Does it list a bunch of artificial ingredients, stuff you can't pronounce, abbreviations and weird sounding words with numbers listed after them?.. probably not healthy and most likely bad for you.

If you mostly stick to the outer perimeter isles of the store and limit everything on the inner isles (all the packaged, processed and junk food) you're pretty safe in general.

I have never in my life been 'DEFEATED' by picking groceries because I couldn't figure out what was good for me and what wasn't. Not a single time. I may have been DISGUSTED by the price of the food. But I have never read a label or looked a banana or looked at a steak and been 'DEFEATED' because I didn't know what I was looking at. It's absurd.