It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 5
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


And you still think the food label changes are addressing the chemicals?

Nothing I've been able to find says anything like.

It's all about lumping all the calories into one total and making them bigger and a few changes like that.

Please show me where they are addressing chemicals in the food.


From what I can tell, the new regulation does not address chemicals one bit. I was just commenting on why she would make that sort of statement.

The regulations do not lump all the calories together, except for individual portions meant to be eaten at one sitting (soda for instance). Otherwise, the proposed labels would change the serving size and it's caloric information closer to a portion someone would normally eat.

For example: If a current label says that a serving size is half a cup, but the average person eats a cup and a half...the labels would be changed to reflect that cup and a half portion.




posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


And the problem is that people eat portions that are too big for them, so how does this address anything?



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:05 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


And the problem is that people eat portions that are too big for them, so how does this address anything?


It's not meant to address how much people eat. That's none of their business in the end. This is designed to make the information on the label more in-line with scientific understanding we did not have in the past about nutrition, reflect more reasonable portion sizes and maybe save some time for those that read labels when they shop.

That's all.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I dont care for the Obamas and im not for big brother directing all aspects of our lives but um have any of you took a look around at the size/weight of a majority of you(obamas must have toured walmart)..just sayin
No reason to light your hair on fire
edit on 1-3-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:29 PM
link   
reply to post by AutumnWitch657
 



I'll tell you how our grandmother's and mothers did it. Badly. Tons of meat, butter on all the veggies,potatoes, rice, pasta, desserts every day. High cholesterol obesity and its getting worse not better.

I disagree.
Before we had all these "convenience" foods, meat, butter, eggs were what people ate.
There wasn't the obesity problem there is now.
Meat, butter and eggs are not bad for you.
I've been eating a lower carb plan for over a decade.
Coconut oil is a staple in our home.

Cholesterol, per se, isn't the enemy.
Highly processed oils/fats are.
Highly processed foods of any kind are.


Generations ago there was not as much sugar consumption as there is today.

We can agree here, but it's not sugar, so much as manufactured sugar in the form of HFCS.
The body doesn't know what to do with it and stores it as fat...despite what the corn lobby says.

I suggest Mrs. Obama read this. It's not the labels that need changing...it's what in the packages.
Additives. HFCS. Salt. Fat used to lure us to eat more...and hidden fat.
Marketing calorie-intense foods to kids.
You can gussy up the labels all day. But Lunchables are still a horrible thing to give kids to eat.
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


I agree about labeling GMOs....but that ain't gonna happen anytime soon...when dairy can't even make the claim that non-hormone products are better for you.
And, the RDAs need to be brought into the 21st Century....not some antiquated values meant to keep you from getting scurvy.
Or call them what they are, really, which is closer to a Miminum requirement.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:37 PM
link   
Michelle is proof that not even the Presidency can buy you class.. Disgusting Creature.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


I agree. There should be a lot more info on these labels and I think this is one small step in the right direction.

The labels should reflect reasonable portion sizes, making it quicker for people like diabetics to shop, GMO info, chemical info, hormones....I could keep going on.

I just find this change to be reasonable and worth looking at outside of the political arena and the rhetoric involved in that.

ETA: Would you agree that the labeling needs to be upgraded? Brought into the 21st century?
edit on 1-3-2014 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

Agreed, the types of sweetener are a big part of the problem, but so is the sheer amount of refined sugar consumed. Today the avg American consumer intakes 152 pounds of sugar. It is in baked beans, hamburgers, and almost everything else!

A little extreme, but the vid still makes a point>
www.activistpost.com...


This is not to demonize the role of glucose/fructose in the body - it is to point out a major imbalance that isn't guided by choice, but by profit. White refined sugar (which is now mainly from genetically modified sugar beets) is stripped of all its nutrients which makes the body work hard to neutralize it. It creates a "high" (or a debt) which must become a "low."

Big Sugar uses tens of millions in lobbying which led to us footing the bill for $280 million to prop up Florida sugar crops last year. Later, we pay for it in healthcare costs; 30-40 percent of those costs are estimated to be from high sugar consumption.
tion-of-sugar-consumption.html



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by speculativeoptimist
 


I don't see how new labels will help that.
Sugars are already listed.
Not seeing what difference it makes to anyone whether they are added sugars or not.
The source of the sugar is important, as I mentioned before with the HFCS.

If something has 52g of sugar per serving.....it's WAY too much to eat on a regular basis.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 


Not to butt in on your discussion, but added sugars are almost always HFCS. That's sort of the point, but by saying "added sugar" Michelle is walking around the corporate repercussions of calling it HFCS.


(post by bobs_uruncle removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DontTreadOnMe
 

Yea, perhaps that is off topic, I just wanted to address the notion of what we are up against. Corporations don't care, we the people(a lot of us anyway) can't seem to exercise self control when it comes to diet, we are bombarded with marketing and we are sugar addicts, so when I see the gov make a suggestion on this issue, well I am for any help we can get. I do not support telling us what we can or can't eat, but the first lady's efforts on label reform is a welcome attempt to try something different.
I supported her effort to change school lunches too, does that make me a socialist or Obama lover? Man I just want things to change for my fellow countryfolk. I, and many others can manage our own lives, but on a nation wide level, something should be done imo.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:16 PM
link   
Oh son of a ... well, anyway.

Dear Michelle,

I invite you to come grocery shopping with me, so you can see a "dazed, confused" mom handle grocery shopping just fine without your interference and condescension. And to add to the excitement, allow me to introduce you to shopping on a one-income budget while providing enticing and healthy foods for a gluten free diet for my son (for autism) and low fat diet for my husband who has Crohns disease. I can accomplish this handily despite not having a chef on premise, a nutritionist on call and personal assistants to do my actual shopping for me.

*Snap*
Mom who is tired of your gosh darn attitude.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:40 PM
link   

DontTreadOnMe

Before we had all these "convenience" foods, meat, butter, eggs were what people ate.
There wasn't the obesity problem there is now.
Meat, butter and eggs are not bad for you.
I've been eating a lower carb plan for over a decade.
Coconut oil is a staple in our home.

Cholesterol, per se, isn't the enemy.
Highly processed oils/fats are.
Highly processed foods of any kind are.

I suggest Mrs. Obama read this. It's not the labels that need changing...it's what in the packages.
Additives. HFCS. Salt. Fat used to lure us to eat more...and hidden fat.
Marketing calorie-intense foods to kids.
You can gussy up the labels all day. But Lunchables are still a horrible thing to give kids to eat.
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us


Butter>margarine
Whole>skim
Whole chicken; Pork; Beef; any fish> store or 'professionally processed' sawdust infused soy product, fast meet

Like the human body... The natural occurring food that we were meant to eat is capable of filtering away the genetic defects easier than our scientifically minded nutritionists were meant to filter it away from our food.

The organic body actually tries to heal itself.

ETA:
There is so much work that can be done in every neighborhood. Kids really don't need to play a video game, when actual work, and appreciation of the immediate environment can mean more. Exercise is awesome but sometimes seems pointless if you watch too much tv. When we can collaborate to keep some kids and young adults and adults and senior citizens involved in helping each other without feeling paranoid about interaction, we might achieve more.

I may sound like a jerk as I say that^^

People where I'm from don't want your help, even for free.

I may sound like a jerk as I say that^^

edit on 1-3-2014 by dfens because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-3-2014 by dfens because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   

AutumnWitch657
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.


1st off cellulose is not wood fiber. 2nd (this is from a diff post of yours) you don't have to buy crackers or any other processed foods. This was the point someone else was trying to make, go to your farmer's market or grow your own food. We did it for years, my dad was a farmer. We not only grew our food but froze and canned, made our own ketchup. I don't like meat so I don't even have to worry about that one.

One point you did make is why most Americans might need better labels.



posted on Mar, 1 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Michelle, maybe for you grocery shopping is bewildering, but most moms do fine. Seems that lately when you open your mouth you imply someone is dumb. Start using that dumb card on your husband, if you are really that concerned about the food we eat then go after Monsanto first and when you get rid of them then maybe we will be open to hear what you have to say. Until then worry about your own dinner table.



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   

DontTreadOnMe

Methinks it's more likely there is an agenda: tell folks they can't figure things out for themselves....and at some point, they will start to have misgivings about themselves and start to believe they are not capable.



That agenda has been around for a long time. About half a century at least.
They don't just tell us we don't know how to figure things out. They have altered education to the point that they teach students how not to think. That's the fault of politicians and special interests who want everyone to be equally stupid.

Unfortunately, after two-plus generations, the program has actually come to fruition and many Americans don't have the wherewithal to figure out much of anything. Much less understand the bio-chemistry experiment that is an ingredients list.

By the way, some of the most powerful corporations in existence spend massive amounts of time and money to make sure nobody can really know what is going into their food. That's the fault of politicians (well paid by lobbyists) as well.


edit on 2-3-2014 by badgerprints because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:34 AM
link   
so this begs the question is husband or wife the dumber of the 2....no wonder the obama's get along they are a perfect match



posted on Mar, 2 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Michelle would feel less overwhelmed in a Communist grocery store where there are is only one brand per product and only half a dozen products.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join