Why do they even put nutrition labels on junk food? You take some of the worst, nutritionally-void foods. And they still put nutrition labels on them, in the US at least. It almost seems to imply that they’re legitimate food, which they are not (let’s face it).
And while we’re at it, why DON’T they put nutrition labels on wine? And beer? And liquor? (They certainly put it on Skittles;).)
:):)
Uh…really?
The labels should read: “Comprised of salty, greasy crap. This will kill you.”
Are you asking why regulatory requirements for labeling of foodstuffs should apply to junk food, or why junk food makers comply with said regulatory requirements?
The fact that junk food is junk is precisely why it needs to have nutrition labels. If all food were good for you, you wouldn’t need to know.
And when does “food” become “junk food” and no longer need accompanying nutrition info? Is there a “red line” of nutrition?
At least in the US it’s because booze is regulated by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, not the FDA.
And the by far most important piece of information about alcoholic beverages is the alcohol percentage (most of them are almost entirely alcohol and water), which I’m pretty sure they are required to list.
You need to drink better wine.
The 1st one I think.
Then the answer is because junk food is food.
Don’t forget that the original purpose of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act was to prevent food adulteration due to additives that may have been harmful. Just as the public has a right to know about the ingredients in drugs, it also has a right to know the ingredients in food.
What someone may consider to be junk food, the FDA would still consider it to be “food”. Eating a large amount of processed colored sugar could be considered junk food but the FDA is there so that the sugar that is eaten doesn’t have, e.g., dirt or dust or glass in it.
To get a picture of what it looks like without listing accurate ingredients, an example might be the situation to that of nutritional supplements. There are, of course, manufacturing guidelines given by the US FDA. However, FDA is not authorized to review dietary supplement products for safety and effectiveness before they are marketed. It’s still somewhat of ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶W̶i̶l̶d̶ ̶W̶e̶s̶t̶ an honor system and there have been multiple investigations that have shown supplement manufacturers have misrepresented their ingredients.
“Comprise” is typically understood to mean “contain”. Most style guides would have you write that “composed of…” or “comprising…”
One purpose of nutrition labels is to allow the consumer to monitor just how much salt and “grease” (among other things) he or she is consuming.
You write that “junk” food will kill you. Perhaps, but certainly slower than not eating anything. It’s still food. There is not some sliding junk–healthy scale, nor a binary designation. People circumstances and nutritional needs vary.
Because the easiest, fastest, and best way to deal with the US gummint is to do what they tell you to do.
Since the GQ answer to this is obvious (because it’s food), let’s move this to IMHO.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Yes, there is really no such thing as “good” food and “bad” food. It’s all just food, and there really aren’t any that are so bad that they can’t be judiciously included in a healthy, varied diet. Nutrition labels assist with that.
I am not certain of your question here (spoiler: Kirkland Sangria)
Food labeling is extremely important for insulin-dependent diabetics. You can eat whatever you want as long as you’re aware of the number of carbs you’re consuming so you can counter-act with the right amount of insulin. If you want some nutritionally-void Skittles, you can have some. Just gotta do the math.
Being an insulin-dependent diabetic is hard enough with just having to do that. I can’t imagine how complicated it used to be, before labeling. Even in the 80s when my friend was growing up with it, she had to stay away from all candies and eat a pretty boring menu of non-packages, low-sugar foods (but for some reason they didn’t consider starches too much). Sounds very lovely and healthy but it’s torture for a little kid. And for everyone who’s weight loss plan depends on eating that way thinking “It’s good for those kids!” Imagine if you had a cheat day, you could die. Yikes.
Anyway, super important for diabetics. Also important for people with allergies (the ingredients parts). Important for people watching their sodium and cholesterol. Important for people with celiac’s disease and other chronic conditions aggravated by food. And last but not least, important for people who want to know what they’re eating, so they can make good (or bad!) decisions.
It may not be “food” to you but if you’re paying attention, for any reason, it’s very important to know.
IMO, labelling is even more important for “junk” food. If people would check the labels regularly, they’d get wake-up calls on things like “VitaminWater” being really high in sugar for something that calls itself water.
I’ve hit quite a few things that made me pause and reconsider when I checked the calorie count.
More importantly, how do you qualify something as “junk food”? That’s a question a lot of governments have been struggling with trying to limit “junk food” in schools. But at the very base level, you need calories to survive, so where do you set the point of “These calories are good” vs. “These calories are bad”?
Best just to give the consumer the information they need and let them sort out what’s best for them.
You could also question the wisdom of, allowing Sugarless Gum to be purchased with Food Stamps/EBT. No calories yet, they qualify as food.