• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Where in US law

Tam

Well-known member
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x

Nowhere Tam- but again you are wrong... It is not Mrs. Obama changing the rules- its the FDA.... Mrs. Obama is just the spokesperson- the same as past Presidents wives have been spokespersons for their pet projects for hundreds of years....

And FDA has rulemaking authority which carries the power of law because several years ago Congress got tired of working and passing every little change in the laws/rules-- and set up a way for the Departments and Agencies to do so....



Feb. 27, 2014, 1:27 p.m. EST

Will new food labels mean paying more for less?

Expect smaller portions, and rejiggered ingredients, experts say

By Catey Hill, MarketWatch


The FDA’s proposed revamp of nutrition labels is intended to help Americans make healthier decisions about what they eat. In fact, experts say what’s printed outside the box can profoundly change what manufacturers put inside the box.

The Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that it wants to revamp the nutrition labels on foods, which haven’t significantly changed in roughly two decades . On the new labels, food manufacturers would have to make the calorie count more prominent with bold type, delete the “calories from fat” listing (the FDA now thinks that the type of fat is more important than the calories from fat, so calories from fat will be removed, but total fat, saturated fat and trans fat counts will stay) and list added sugars in addition to total sugars, as well as Vitamin D and potassium.


Perhaps most important, the proposed food labels would require that the serving size on food reflect what the average person will actually eat or drink. So, for example, a pint of ice cream, which is currently labeled as four servings, would now be labeled as two servings, with calorie counts and other nutritional information revised accordingly. Furthermore, if a package does contain multiple servings, this will now be labeled more clearly: Instead of “amount per serving,” it might read “amount per cup.”


The FDA says that moves like these are designed to address a changing America: “Obesity, heart disease and other chronic diseases are leading public health problems,” said Michael Landa, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in a statement. “The proposed new label is intended to bring attention to calories and serving sizes, which are important in addressing these problems.”

So what will this mean for consumers? On the one hand, some experts think it could be good news: “Food manufacturers might introduce better choices,” says Susan B. Roberts, director of the Energy Metabolism Laboratory at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University and founder of the iDiet weight loss program.

Indeed, it’s possible that on existing food and beverage products, food manufacturers might reduce calories, add less sugar, and include more vitamins, experts say. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, points out that this is indeed what happened with trans fats: When the government began requiring those to be listed, they disappeared out of many foods. “This will be a big push for the industry to keep added sugars as low as possible,” she says


Michelle Obama unveils food label overhaul

Michelle Obama unveils a proposal for new food labels with larger-font calorie counts and realistic portion sizes.


Furthermore, Roberts thinks that down the road, consumers might get entirely new, healthier products with fewer calories, more vitamins and less added sugar — that is, if they end up buying more of the healthier products once this label is introduced. “This is definitely a positive thing,” she says. Or, as Nestle puts it, “this is a very consumer-friendly move.”

But it could also have a darker side. Ronald Bazar, author of “Your Perfect Diet” thinks that “the food biz will do what it can to maintain sales, so no doubt the effect could be smaller sizes and the same price.” Indeed, the new labeling could cost the food industry an estimated $2 billion to carry out, so they have an extra incentive to maintain profit margins.

And then there’s the issue of whether new labels will even impact what and how much we eat. Roberts, who has done extensive research on food labeling, says that the evidence is mixed on whether and how much food labels change what consumers buy and eat. Still, she says, “this can’t be harmful.” Nestle adds that because the calories will be so prominent, “even if someone just glances at the package, they’ll probably see them.”

The food labels may take a few years to go into effect, as the new rule is subject to a 90-day comment period, and then the final ruling could take months to be finalized. Finally, the FDA has said it would give food manufacturers two years to comply with the new rules.
 

Mike

Well-known member
More expensive Regulations to save us from ourselves!!!!!!

But it could also have a darker side. Ronald Bazar, author of “Your Perfect Diet” thinks that “the food biz will do what it can to maintain sales, so no doubt the effect could be smaller sizes and the same price.” Indeed, the new labeling could cost the food industry an estimated $2 billion to carry out, so they have an extra incentive to maintain profit margins.

That $2 Billion will be passed down to the consumer. You and I. Michelle doesn't care, she loves spending the "Mans" money...............


Maybe OT should have read those boxes a little closer over the years? :lol: :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x

Nowhere Tam- but again you are wrong... It is not Mrs. Obama changing the rules- its the FDA.... Mrs. Obama is just the spokesperson- the same as past Presidents wives have been spokespersons for their pet projects for hundreds of years....

And FDA has rulemaking authority which carries the power of law because several years ago Congress got tired of working and passing every little change in the laws/rules-- and set up a way for the Departments and Agencies to do so....



Feb. 27, 2014, 1:27 p.m. EST

Will new food labels mean paying more for less?

Expect smaller portions, and rejiggered ingredients, experts say

By Catey Hill, MarketWatch


The FDA’s proposed revamp of nutrition labels is intended to help Americans make healthier decisions about what they eat. In fact, experts say what’s printed outside the box can profoundly change what manufacturers put inside the box.

The Food and Drug Administration announced Thursday that it wants to revamp the nutrition labels on foods, which haven’t significantly changed in roughly two decades . On the new labels, food manufacturers would have to make the calorie count more prominent with bold type, delete the “calories from fat” listing (the FDA now thinks that the type of fat is more important than the calories from fat, so calories from fat will be removed, but total fat, saturated fat and trans fat counts will stay) and list added sugars in addition to total sugars, as well as Vitamin D and potassium.


Perhaps most important, the proposed food labels would require that the serving size on food reflect what the average person will actually eat or drink. So, for example, a pint of ice cream, which is currently labeled as four servings, would now be labeled as two servings, with calorie counts and other nutritional information revised accordingly. Furthermore, if a package does contain multiple servings, this will now be labeled more clearly: Instead of “amount per serving,” it might read “amount per cup.”


The FDA says that moves like these are designed to address a changing America: “Obesity, heart disease and other chronic diseases are leading public health problems,” said Michael Landa, director of the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, in a statement. “The proposed new label is intended to bring attention to calories and serving sizes, which are important in addressing these problems.”

So what will this mean for consumers? On the one hand, some experts think it could be good news: “Food manufacturers might introduce better choices,” says Susan B. Roberts, director of the Energy Metabolism Laboratory at the USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University and founder of the iDiet weight loss program.

Indeed, it’s possible that on existing food and beverage products, food manufacturers might reduce calories, add less sugar, and include more vitamins, experts say. Marion Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, points out that this is indeed what happened with trans fats: When the government began requiring those to be listed, they disappeared out of many foods. “This will be a big push for the industry to keep added sugars as low as possible,” she says


Michelle Obama unveils food label overhaul

Michelle Obama unveils a proposal for new food labels with larger-font calorie counts and realistic portion sizes.


Furthermore, Roberts thinks that down the road, consumers might get entirely new, healthier products with fewer calories, more vitamins and less added sugar — that is, if they end up buying more of the healthier products once this label is introduced. “This is definitely a positive thing,” she says. Or, as Nestle puts it, “this is a very consumer-friendly move.”

But it could also have a darker side. Ronald Bazar, author of “Your Perfect Diet” thinks that “the food biz will do what it can to maintain sales, so no doubt the effect could be smaller sizes and the same price.” Indeed, the new labeling could cost the food industry an estimated $2 billion to carry out, so they have an extra incentive to maintain profit margins.

And then there’s the issue of whether new labels will even impact what and how much we eat. Roberts, who has done extensive research on food labeling, says that the evidence is mixed on whether and how much food labels change what consumers buy and eat. Still, she says, “this can’t be harmful.” Nestle adds that because the calories will be so prominent, “even if someone just glances at the package, they’ll probably see them.”

The food labels may take a few years to go into effect, as the new rule is subject to a 90-day comment period, and then the final ruling could take months to be finalized. Finally, the FDA has said it would give food manufacturers two years to comply with the new rules.

So tell me Oldtimer will the Congress get a vote on making US companies lay out this expense or will Barak sign an executive order demanding the FDA to do what his wife wants, like he uses the EPA and Executive Orders to go around the Congress to do whatever he wants to destroy the US coal industry and shut down anyone selling wood stoves that have been used for hundreds of years to heat home?



First Lady Michelle Obama has unveiled plans for the most sweeping overhaul of nutrition labels on US food packages in more than two decades.

Calorie counts will appear in larger, bolder type, and consumers will know for the first time whether foods have added sugars.

Under the Obama administration's plan, labels will also feature more realistic descriptions of a serving.

It is not clear whether the food industry will support the proposals.

'Families deserve better'

"You as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf and be able to tell whether it's good for your family," said Mrs Obama at the White House event on Thursday.

She added: "I know there will be many opinions on what this label should look like, but I think that we all can agree that families deserve more and better information about the food they eat."

Mrs Obama made the announcement as part of her Let's Move initiative to combat child obesity, which is celebrating its fourth anniversary.


BTW did you hear the CO Founder of GREEN PEACE, on Hannity tonight? Oh forget I asked as I got a feeling you are one of those Obama lovers that believe FOX LIES ABOUT EVERYTHING. So let me tell you what he said.

First I have to say when Hannity said he was having the Co FOunder of Green Peace on to speak about Climate Change I thought OH BOY another Global warming nutcase out to tell us the Polar Vortex is due to GLOBAL WARMING. SO was I ever surprized.

He said all the science he has studied for the past 25 + years that covers the climate history from way before any of these so called Computer programs are using, proves there is NO EVIDENCE that humans are causing Climate Change, and in fact his science says the earth is cooler now and that the Computer programs that Obama is using to force his leftwingnut climate Change agenda down peoples throats are not worth the hype as they are WRONG. The reason there are so many "experts" claiming there is climate change is if they don't, they don't get the government grant money (that pays for their lifestyles). So the US Coal industry in Montana that you brag about and Wood Stove companies are being destroyed by CRAP SCIENCE being pushed by executive orders by your hero OBAMA. ANd why is he using the EPA and Executive orders to push his agenda Oldtimer, because the Congress and Senate would NOT pass his Crap And Trade Bill. :roll:

So you can claim the FDA is proposing these new labels but Michelle is pushing them to further her NANNY STATE Project and if Barak has to he will EXECUTIVE ORDER them be enforced. He can't EXECUTIVE ORDER a pipeline be built which will create thousands of jobs but he will use his pen to destroy jobs every chance he gets and you can count on it
Oldtimer!!!!!!! :mad:

One more thing want to bet that after the 90 day comment period, it will not matter what the comments say the FDA will be forced by Barak Obama to move and move fast to get his wife's labeling project implemented?
It has taken 5 years of studies to get where Oldtimer on the Pipeline that people are begging him to approve to create much needed jobs but these labels will likely be on the store shelves long before Canada gets a yes or no from your Hero on the Pipeline. :x
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam- its the same procedure that was used by the USDA to change the BSE quarantine laws that had long been in place - and start allowing Canadian beef- and then Canadian cattle to be imported back into the US... That never went to a vote of Congress either- just the comment and hearing period- and action by the Secretary of Agriculture... The only difference will be in this case the final decision will probably be left to the Secretary of Health and Human services or Food and Drug Commissioner...

Before with the BSE beef import issue you cheered the ability of go around Congress and fast track the border issue-- BUT now its a bad process since its a project Mrs. Obama takes interest in :???: :wink: :p
 

kolanuraven

Well-known member
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x


I love this....you are worse than FH...you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet!!!

This is great!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam, on a serious note...have you tried hormone replacement therapy to tone down these moods???
 

hopalong

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x


I love this....you are worse than FH...you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet!!!

This is great!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam, on a serious note...have you tried hormone replacement therapy to tone down these moods???


Were yours covered by obamacare,,, can you get your money back,, cause they didn't work :wink: :wink: :wink:
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x


I love this....you are worse than FH...you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet!!!

This is great!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam, on a serious note...have you tried hormone replacement therapy to tone down these moods???

You keep bringing my name into things..........I DO NOT believe everything I read on the internet. I do SHARE some things.........big difference!!! I don't live in a box and am aware of what is going on that is destroying our country. Can't say the same for you.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam- its the same procedure that was used by the USDA to change the BSE quarantine laws that had long been in place - and start allowing Canadian beef- and then Canadian cattle to be imported back into the US... That never went to a vote of Congress either- just the comment and hearing period- and action by the Secretary of Agriculture... The only difference will be in this case the final decision will probably be left to the Secretary of Health and Human services or Food and Drug Commissioner...

Before with the BSE beef import issue you cheered the ability of go around Congress and fast track the border issue-- BUT now its a bad process since its a project Mrs. Obama takes interest in :???: :wink: :p

There is an article this morning somewhere talking about how Buckwheat & Michelle used Whitehouse employees to fast-track these Regulation changes which could have taken 10 years and worked it down in 2-3 months just to build Michelle's legacy. The article claimed it was miraculous feat.
Also remember that these changes will cost us over $2 Billion in pocket change.
 

Faster horses

Well-known member
Mike said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam- its the same procedure that was used by the USDA to change the BSE quarantine laws that had long been in place - and start allowing Canadian beef- and then Canadian cattle to be imported back into the US... That never went to a vote of Congress either- just the comment and hearing period- and action by the Secretary of Agriculture... The only difference will be in this case the final decision will probably be left to the Secretary of Health and Human services or Food and Drug Commissioner...

Before with the BSE beef import issue you cheered the ability of go around Congress and fast track the border issue-- BUT now its a bad process since its a project Mrs. Obama takes interest in :???: :wink: :p

There is an article this morning somewhere talking about how Buckwheat & Michelle used Whitehouse employees to fast-track these Regulation changes which could have taken 10 years and worked it down in 2-3 months just to build Michelle's legacy. The article claimed it was miraculous feat.
Also remember that these changes will cost us over $2 Billion in pocket change.

Maybe now she's proud of her country. :roll: :cry: :mad:
 

Mike

Well-known member
I might add that the changes have been in the works for years because nutritionists views have changed over the last 10 years or so. Michelle didn't propose them, she just joined in with the FDA on them.

But I'll guarantee she'll take the credit............

What I would like to see is the implementation of more exercise IN THE SCHOOLS like what happened during the Kennedy admin.
John F. Kennedy showed his commitment to improving the nation's fitness even before he took the oath of office. After the election, he published "The Soft American" in Sports Illustrated. The article established four points as the basis of his proposed program, including a "White House Committee on Health and Fitness"; direct oversight by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; an annual Youth Fitness Congress to be attended by state governors; and the assertion that physical fitness was very much the business of the federal government.

Only a month after the inauguration, the new administration convened a conference on physical fitness, reorganized the President's Council on Youth Fitness, and chose a new director, Charles "Bud" Wilkinson, a highly successful University of Oklahoma football coach. True to Kennedy's style, the new executive for the council was named a special consultant to the president. The president's council unquestionably became President Kennedy's council.
 

Tam

Well-known member
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x


I love this....you are worse than FH...you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet!!!

This is great!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam, on a serious note...have you tried hormone replacement therapy to tone down these moods???


TO KOLA
Got to love it if I or FH post something we read in an email or on the internet, you attack us calling us dumb as we believe everything we read :roll:

BUT

Oldtimer posts something from FB or he heard at the watering hole that is proven to be a lie within seconds and you sit in SILENCE. Why not tell Oldtimer he is dumb for spreading known lies that are meant to destroy those he sees as a threat to his and your hero Obama.

To the rest of the Ranchers readers

Tam, on a serious note...have you tried hormone replacement therapy to tone down these moods

Would this liberal comment meant to shut me up be considered a WAR ON A WOMAN if a Conservative made it against a Liberal woman? :?
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
If I state that it must be Hillary's hormone therapy that made her lie about Benghazi....would that be considered a "war on women"

Maybe any mood swings are justification for not voting for a female, its that what you are saying, Kola?
 

Tam

Well-known member
Faster horses said:
kolanuraven said:
Tam said:
Where in US law does it say the First Lady can just announce that US companies have to change their labeling at her whim.

It costs A LOT of money for companies to change their labeling so should it not take a bill passed by the Congress and Senate and signed by the President to force the issue?

It was bad enough that Mr President is turning the Oval Office chair into a ROYAL THRONE but now the Mrs. is barking orders like she has executive order priviledge. :x


I love this....you are worse than FH...you believe EVERYTHING you read on the internet!!!

This is great!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Tam, on a serious note...have you tried hormone replacement therapy to tone down these moods???

You keep bringing my name into things..........I DO NOT believe everything I read on the internet. I do SHARE some things.........big difference!!! I don't live in a box and am aware of what is going on that is destroying our country. Can't say the same for you.

Forget it FH, Kola is a Hypocrite, and we all know it, for attacking you for posting something you read to get a discussion going to see if anyone else has seen it. But when Oldtimer knowingly uses Ranchers to SPREAD LIES he has read on FB or on one of the other Liberal websites he visits daily, and gets caught and pulls a Hillary by claiming OH WELL WHAT DOES IT MATTER NOW, does Kola say anything to Oldtimer and call him out for spreading lies NOPE IT'S NO BIG F-ING DEAL.

But what do you expect, that is how liberals act, what does it matter if they lie, the lie did the damage it was MEANT TO DO by the time the truth comes out. Obama, Hillary, Susan Rice, Lois Lerner, Clapper, Holder, and Sebelius all get caught bold face Lying to the American people and Liberals look the other way and move on like nothing has happen. But let Chris Christie say he did not know about the Bridge closure, he is called a liar and if not a Liar he is Incompetent for not knowing what was going on in his Administration. You can't win as the Dems have no morals and do not hold themselves to the same high standard they expect everyone else to live at. If they did they would be protesting in the streets demand Obama be impeached and charged with war crimes like they did with Bush.
 

Tam

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
If I state that it must be Hillary's hormone therapy that made her lie about Benghazi....would that be considered a "war on women"

Maybe any mood swings are justification for not voting for a female, its that what you are saying, Kola?

Yea Would it be a War on Women if a Conservative said Hillary is not fit to be President as she might miss her hormone therapy treatment and say something snotty to a foreign leader while trying to negotiate a touchy deal that might prevent Iran from getting a Nuke or Russia from taking over another weaker country, or keep North Korea from launching a nuke at Alaska? Can you imagine the uproar from the Liberals? :shock:

Can you imagine the uproar if a Conservative said the reason Hillary did not answer that three in the morning phone call from Benghazi was because "SHE NEEDED HER BEAUTY SLEEP" :shock:
 
Top