Food labels and sticker shockon February 28, 2014 @ 5:58 am (Updated: 9:45 am - 2/28/14 )
So in fact, it was closer to 700 calories!
This wasn't a cookie, it was a survival ration.
The point is, a food label can be technically accurate and still lie.
So the latest government food label proposal would do a few things, which I think make a lot of sense.
Servings must be a reasonable size, and the number of servings and the calorie count have to be in print big enough that somebody over 40 can read it.
Yet, even the commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration can't promise it'll work.
"The label alone won't magically change how America eats," said FDA commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg.
Because face it, American food is just too delicious.
Our snack foods are better than sex, and our reality cooking shows have turned us all into competitive chefs who can create dessert out of a couple of parsnips and a walnut, so we have no chance.
The government would have to mandate tamper-proof seals that prevent even you from opening the package. People eventually tune out the labels because we're labeling the wrong thing.
The ingredient labels should be on people. So if you see a fat guy, you'd read his label and know what not to eat, and then if Brad Pitt or Sofia Vergara walk by, you could look at their labels - and say, "I'll have what they're having."
And you'd actually know what it is they're having.
Tom Tangney found himself asking whether 'Foxcatcher' was worth it
The state's first charter school is on probation, but the director promises improvements
Please login below with your Facebook, Twitter, Google+ or Disqus account. Existing MyNorthwest account holders will need to create a new Disqus account or use one of the social logins provided below. Thank you.