A blog about Health & Wellness, News, and Kern County.
Real Name: Emily Hagedorn Member Since: April 08, 2006 Last Signed In: July 02, 2008 Profile Views: 9374 Blog Views: 43664 Is there anything good about mosquitoes? West Nile problems all over the country First California resident diagnosed with West Nile in 2008 'Access to vital health care is at stake for all Californians' A yard of shoes Do you have 'spring fever'? (Wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Skin cancer: To screen or not to screen Gay marriage, or lack thereof, affects mental health Coffee drinkers rejoice! You may live longer due to the brew Bako's first West Nile-infected mosquitoes found August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 Here's some sites I find useful and interesting: Some fun blogs I like, some health and some random: Got a blog or link to add to this list? Please let me know at ehagedorn@bakersfield.com. 
RSS 2.0    |
|
|
Reading nutrition labels: How many is too many calories?
How much do you know about the food you eat?
I bet not as much as you think you do. Take the quiz on today's front page of The Californian to test your food IQ. When I was putting the quiz together yesterday I was surprised several times by food that looks healthy but isn't and visa versa. On a whim, I looked up the nutrition information for food at Sonic, my favorite fast-food restaurant. Yikes! Little did I know that the dinner portion of Jumbo Popcorn Chicken — chicken is supposed to be healthy, right? — has 560 calories, 32 grams of fat, six grams of trans fat and 1,910 milligrams of salt. No more of that for me, thank-you-very-much. If you want to find out what's in your food, CalorieKing.com is a good resource. Several public health groups are pushing the state legislature to post the nutrition information on menus and menu boards. The idea is that if people know what they are eating, they won't eat it or eat as much of it. (Read "Bill targets nutritional information" in today's Californian.) But even if that bill passes, will people even understand what they're looking at? Calories and fat are pretty easy to understand, but how much is too much sodium, carbohydrates and trans fat? To help guide you through the minefield of nutrition info, here's how much of each nutrient you're supposed to have each day, based off a 2,000-calorie diet, courtesy of the Food and Drug Administration.
So my Jumbo Popcorn Chicken has a quarter of my daily calories, half my total fat, tons of trans fat and almost all my salt. Good to know. 3 comments from 3 users
1
posted by
CCROPP
on Aug 7, 2007 at 02:46 PM
I just read the article, "Bill Targets Nutritional Information" and I am glad to see attention being drawn to this issue. Lara Dunbar and Harvey Jones, quoted in this article are missing the point entirely. If you ask me their taking the stance of chicken little...and the sky is not falling. This law will not result in lawsuits to the contrary, fully informing consumer about what they are eating protects restaurants as well as allows consumers to make smart choices about their diet. And let's talk about cost... restaurants regularly change their menu boards so this will be just one more piece of information to add to their menu boards. Where's the cost? Furthermore Dunbar already admits that this nutrition information is already available what's the big deal with making it readily available to consumer at the point of purchase in an easy to read format. If you really want to talk about costs, what about the cost of health care in treating people who develop obesity related diseases like diabetes, hypertension, heart disease,etc. Any cost associated with this bill seems resonable in comparison to the cost of treating people once they develop these diseases. Finally on the point of educating people...we have been educating communities about nutrition for years. We know that it takes more than just education it takes policy and environmental change. People need to make healthy choice about their diet but they also need easy access to healthy foods. Menu labeling makes a lot of sense. posted by
ehagedorn
on Aug 7, 2007 at 02:57 PM
Very insightful comments, CCROPP, which I assume stands for the Central California Regional Obesity Prevention Program. (Check out their Web site when you can.)But to play devil's advocate, let me ask: Nutritional information on grocery items has been around for decades and seems to not have helped with stemming the obesity epidemic. In fact, obesity rates have grown exponentially during that same time period. Why should putting nutritional info on menus and menu boards affect what people eat any more than it has on grocery items? posted by
mandap
on Aug 8, 2007 at 04:38 PM
To answer your question, obesity rates began to rise long before packaged food labeling became required by federal law. Who knows how much worse rates might have been without packaged food labeling? Also, people are increasingly eating out and not cooking at home. According to the National Restaurant Association, Americans spend almost half of their food dollars away from home. This means that restaurant calories are as important to weight control as packaged food calories. If its important to have nutritional information on packaged foods, its just as important to have it on menus and menu boards. Consumers have the right to easily accessible information about all the food they buy.
1
|
