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

sheepslayer247
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?

Her plan is to make the total calories in the label bigger and bolder as if you will notice it more. There's a picture for you.

She also plans to have them divide out the total calories differently because we are too dumb to figure out that there are more than one serving in a package, so we've been duped into thinking all these years that if the package says 1 serving with 20 calories ... that's all that's in it ... even if the bag or container it's in looks like this.

So, you see, what Michelle is proposing has absolutely nothing to do with telling you what all the esoteric chemicals in the food you are eating. They also want to divide sugars in two categories: one for natural and one for added sugars. They are also eliminating calories from fat because of the existence of healthy fats.

In general, the best way to avoid all those chemicals is still not buy food with labels, otherwise known as food not in packages and pre-prepared. I know that doesn't eliminate them entirely, but you do cut out a lot of them that way.

reply to post by ketsuko

even if the bag or container it's in looks like this.

That is not so. If you go to the FDA link provided somewhere in this thread, it is individual servings (foods packaged to be eaten at one sitting) that will be calculated and labeled as 1 serving. It would not apply to that giant bag of cheesy poofs.

ETA: Your link touches on that as well.

reply to post by sheepslayer247


No, that's the current label. It says that 1 serving is so many calories, and then, yes, it tells you how many servings are in the package. But the assumption behind the new rules is that people are treating the listed calories in one serving as if they are the total calories in the package no matter what it looks like.

Just another way for the man cow to make herself feel superior over who ever she is ridiculing today, this is all she has, she has done NOTHING to be recognized for, she can't contain the hatred she has for this country.

What's real is when she sits alone somewhere in the Whitehouse she realizes that she and her husband will be branded as the worse presidential failures in the history of the U.S.

neo96
Ya know if people can't read a GD food label.

That says more about the current state of education in this country than food labels.

Guess her hubby needs to throw a few more billions of dollars to try to make people 'smarter'.

That would help seeing how the GOP cuts funding to the Dept. of Education every chance they can get.

People who have a lower income cannot afford most of the "healthy food". Michelle is an idiot racist, who like all in congress, is soo out of touch with common americans that it's absurd. Let her return back to her hero Jeremiah Wrights church and live in fantasy world.

Michelle Obama isn't even ball park to real women like my mom and my wife. Women like Michelle will feel very dumb and insignificant while around them. They don't rely on 'helpers', cooks, nannys, etc., etc.. With each passing day, just when I think I cannot laugh at the Obama's anymore than I already do, I read something like this. These people are lunatics and need a good dose of common sense, common decency and morals.

How hard can it be to choose "real and/or whole" foods? Geez.. no label required.

reply to post by WhiteAlice


I get real anemic too... liver is still cheap. Bread it and fry it in oil with onions, or to be healthier you can bread it with a crumb topping (like italian bread crumbs) and bake it.

reply to post by ketsuko


They should be reminding people in BIG BOLD PRINT that they are eating enough for 4 people!! Not remove the nutritional value like vitamin A and C from the packaging!!

reply to post by sheepslayer247


This has not one thing to do with her husband... she said, and I quote:

But unless you had a thesaurus, a calculator, a microscope, or a degree in nutrition, you were out of luck. So you felt defeated, and you just gave up

This is condescending BS. I have never once felt defeated while reading labels. Not everyone in the world is retarded and I don't care for ANYONE and I dont care who they are to imply that myself and other women are little more than retards...

and THAT is the implication of that sentence.


I didn't put up with that kind of condescending crap from my ex-husband and I wont put up with it from anyone else! And believe me you I paid for it by being a punching bag... but no way in hell is someone going to act like I am a fool because I am a woman!

I AM a woman, and smart, and shopping and reading labels does not make me feel defeated!

I do NOT need some politicians wife to do my thinking for me... I am quite capable of that myself!

OpinionatedB
reply to post by sheepslayer247

 

This has not one thing to do with her husband... she said, and I quote:

But unless you had a thesaurus, a calculator, a microscope, or a degree in nutrition, you were out of luck. So you felt defeated, and you just gave up

This is condescending BS. I have never once felt defeated while reading labels. Not everyone in the world is retarded and I don't care for ANYONE and I dont care who they are to imply that myself and other women are little more than retards...and THAT is the implication of that sentence.
I AM a woman, and smart, and shopping and reading labels does not make me feel defeated!

I do NOT need some politicians wife to do my thinking for me... I am quite capable of that myself

Denial is a river in England. It's also the place to register your rhetoric.

Nowadays, we have forums for people to complain. The complainers usually get ignored. Michelle is somewhat, marginally, semi-determined to come to her own defense of her own statements. Reason why? She's not sure yet.

reply to post by dfens


You don't appear to be well versed in your own rhetoric as the saying is:

"Denial isn't just a river in Egypt"

When you say it, it's a play on words to indicate that the person to whom you speak is in denial of something. And no, I am not a stupid person in denial of my own stupidity if that was your intended implication...

What I am is unwilling is for others to act like I am unfit to read a nutrition label..

The people who do not read them and are obese is not because they cannot understand them, its that they like eating too much and foods that are bad for them...

I give people much more credit than Michelle Obama apparently... and this is the first time she has ever done something that made me red in the face angry... If she feels like people do not eat properly than make certain within the education system children are taught well concerning health and nutrition.

What I do not need is someone telling me I am too stupid. I heard how "stupid" I was from a man who couldn't pay off a mortgage without me because I understood interest and he didn't. I don't need to hear it from some woman....He is my ex... I cannot wait until she is OUR ex too...

Apparently, some dumb idiot is married to the president and she thinks because of it she is more intelligent somehow than other women. She can kiss my

reply to post by buster2010

That would help seeing how the GOP cuts funding to the Dept. of Education every chance they can get

Newsflash there.

The problem is not the money we spend on Education.

For some asinine reason that is the solution that Gop opposites love to cry about is no matter what the issue just throw money at it hoping it will go away.

For what we spend on education we should have the smartest people in the world.

Fact is we don't.

And that is by design.

Because if GOP opposites really wanted 'smart' people.

They would never vote for the Michele's, and her husband.

AutumnWitch657
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

Local farmers don't grow cereal or crackers or bread, they don't offer meat direct from the farm that I know of. I guess we could fish but gee the water is polluted so farm raised fish are safer but you can't buy direct from them either. Your advice, easier said then done. Do you buy your food like that? Drive out to a farm?

Actually, I do but we are rural and live about 20 minutes from a major city. We get our eggs about 5km from here at an all natural chicken farm, we also get some of our chicken there. 10km's away, we get our pork and sometimes chicken if we want a really big one, like a 25 pounder. There are also two other chicken farms locally but they are more industrial farming so I don't bother with those. We get our beef from another farm but that ones is about 20km's away and when we want buffalo, we can get that about 30km's away. We grow a lot of our own vegetables on about 1/2 acre of land in our backyard. We are on well water but we also have a river behind us and a large lake about 2 minutes away walking distance so we can also fish for bass, pickerel and trout in the river.

Other than all that, we buy all of the extra vegetables and fruits from local farms as much as possible in the summer and fall, winter and spring is a bit harder so we do try to freeze everything we can for use later but I do break down and buy from the grocery stores in late winter and spring. We also have two local apple orchards and three grape producing farms locally. I can make many of the simple drugs like aspirin as we have many willows in the area and as well between the next door neighbor and ourselves we have 3 large producing black walnut trees (2000 to 3000 walnuts per year), black walnuts are high in vitamin C, omega 3 & 6 and contain protein and carbs.

One of the only things I am missing is a small waterfall so I can produce my own hydro-electricity, but I make my own anyway when I have to as I have an experimental reactor as well as wind turbines and a steam turbine (electricity and hot water heating) and of course I have wood stoves (main heating, it's easier than running everything else). I may build a small ethanol production unit when I am ready ;-)

So, I think I am doing it the right way.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by buster2010


We've been throwing ever more money at education ever since the DoE was founded, and somehow it's never enough and education always gets worse than it was. I wonder why that is ...

How on earth did anyone get educated before there was a DoE to appropriate tax dollars? And why were they better educated?

In my opinion the "Lower Income = less money to buy food = only being able to eat cheap processed food" argument really doesn't hold a lot of weight. Yes, you might be able to buy more food items if you're buying the cheap stuff but the majority of it is only empty calories at best. In eating it, your body doesn't get anything good/useable out of it so you're always feeling hungry and never satisfied so you eat more of it and feel hungry more often and the cycle repeats itself. You might get more "food" initially for your money but you also end up eating way more of it then you should be so it negates much of what was potentially saved by buying crap food.

Buying quality, real food is not really that much more expensive (if at all) than the cheap processed stuff in the long run, it just requires a bit more effort and thought and I think that's the main issue for most people. I'm not talking about buying organic either, (though obviously that's better if you can) I'm talking about the basics.. dried rice, lentils, beans, potatoes, fresh fruits and veggies.. all that stuff. You end up eating less and much less often because your body can actually absorb more nutrients from your food and isn't hungry all the time. For the price of a couple boxes of KD, you could buy a bag of rice that would give you a week or two worth of meals. I don't buy it that people "just can't afford to eat decent food".. it's just too convenient to eat a meal already prepared for you out of a box or foil plate that you didn't have to think about or put any effort into.

reply to post by ketsuko

We've been throwing ever more money at education ever since the DoE was founded, and somehow it's never enough and education always gets worse than it was. I wonder why that is ...

Because some people think they can teach intelligence which it can't be taught.

People either have it or they don't.

What is being taught is how to parrot things out of a book. That is if students are not too busy texting,sexting, typing their lives away on twitter, and facebook, or playing xbox one.

Some people for some odd reason don't see the epic failure of the education system in this country is because of the one size fits all 'mass produced' zombies.

With a severe lack of work ethic.

Some people don't have to work at being 'smart' others have to make the effort, but the majority sits back, and does other things.

It has never been about the money.

EVER.

But certain people like the Micheles in this country continue the 'dumbing' down of America.

reply to post by OpinionatedB

This is condescending BS. I have never once felt defeated while reading labels. Not everyone in the world is retarded and I don't care for ANYONE and I dont care who they are to imply that myself and other women are little more than retards...

If that's how you take her comment, that's you prerogative. If you have read food labels you know that there are many names for chemicals and such in the food that you would have to research beforehand to even have a clue what it is and what effect it could have on your body.....unless you're a chemist or something.

That's how I take her comments. And I don't think she was belittling women. She was directing her comments to women because women still tend to do the majority of the grocery shopping in America and pay more attention to the health of the family.

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.