Oh, Dear…Another Silly Way to ‘RATE’ Our ‘Food Nutrition’

In Friday's NY TImes, there was an artilce about the new 'Label Plan Offered to Rate Food Nutrition'.

"The nutrition label on the front of a box of cereal or a frozen dinner should be as easy to read as the Energy Star Label on a clothes washer", the article begins…

By the way, isn't that statement an oxymoron in and of itself?  A "NUTRITION label on a BOX"…that phrase by itself stops me from considering any given item a food already, with very few exceptions!

The new system would show, of course, the number of calories per serving (because that is the most important thing to consider- kidding) and have zero to three starts to illustrate how 'healthy' it is.  The ranking will be done based on how much added sugar, sodium and trans (AND SATURATED) fats it has.

OK, that part makes sense- and I agree that we don't want to be eating things that have ANY refined sugar in them, nor excess quantites of sodium or any hydrogenated oils.  Saturated fat, however, does not belong in that list as eating SOME Sat Fat that naturally occurs in our wild protein sources is a GOOD part of our heathy Paleo Diets.

Later on in the piece, there is a quote which states, "People won't need to look at numbers or do any calculations to figure out what they mean; it's easy three stars are better than zero stars."

Nice.

Right- so go ahead and remain ignoraant about what you're putting in your body?

I don't think so.

I have another, equally EASY approach that anyone can adapt:

IF IT'S FOOD, EAT IT.

IF IT'S NOT FOOD, DON'T EAT IT.

How is that for simple?

What's food?  

Something that could be picked or foraged, then eaten as-is, and something that used to run on the land or swim in the water.

HERE is the full article…