Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!usa-post Newsgroups: usa-today.issues,americast.usa-today.issues From: usa-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: usa-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: issues Tue, Oct 20 1992 Date: Tue, 20 Oct 92 04:35:16 EDT Message-ID: 10-20 0000 DECISIONLINE: Issues & Debate USA TODAY Update Oct. 20, 1992 Source: USA TODAY:Gannett National Information Network Here are some of the issues and topics being debated across the nation Tuesday morning in USA TODAY: USDA, Endorsements, Deficit. TODAY'S DEBATE - FOOD LABELS: USA TODAY'S OPINION: Let's face it. There's no way a food label can teach you everything you need to know about what you should eat. But the U.S. Department of Agriculture appears determined to give you as little as possible. In a last-minute effort to protect the meat and poultry industries it regulates, USDA is backing away from a promise to coordinate with the Food and Drug Administration in designing new nutrition labels - less than three weeks from the deadline for final regulations. If USDA gets its way, consumers will have to interpret two different styles of labels - one for meat and poultry, one for everything else - and fill in a lot of blanks. If you're trying to map out a balanced diet, those blanks can be hazardous to your health. Since meat and poultry products are often high in the biggest health menaces - fat, sodium and cholesterol - full disclosure is especially important. The USDA label would disguise the menace. It would tell how many grams of fat in a slice of bologna, for example, but give no specific information about what percentage of the daily fat limit that slice takes up. To eat smart, you need both. The FDA label would include both, calculated for a 2,000 calorie-per-day diet. ... USDA should get back on board. The evidence is on FDA's side. FDA has spent $300,000 on three years of research to find out which label is most helpful to the most consumers. Its format has the support of health and consumer groups like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Association of Retired Persons. More than 70% of shoppers read labels when trying to decide on a first-time purchase. ... USDA should live up to its original promise on food labels. OTHER VIEW: J. PATRICK BOYLE, president of the American Meat Institute: The question today is not whether to give consumers nutrition labels, but how to make nutrition labels usable. Everyone wants simple, honest, understandable and uniform nutrition labels on foods. Study after study has shown that the more complex the label, the less consumers understand the information. The Food and Drug Administration's "more is better" approach to nutrition labeling is too complicated. Studies show only 6% of Americans ... devour such complex information, but it confuses most Americans who are looking for something simple. Also, FDA's prescribing a "one-size-fits-all" diet on a nutrition label strikes us as the height of bureaucratic arrogance. Each of us has different dietary requirements. Since FDA's label would be based on a recommended diet for an average 55-year-old man, it would be meaningless for everyone else. While the Department of Agriculture's preferred format is better, it still clutters the label with generic information that does not apply to the food in the package. Generic dietary advice is helpful, but not crammed into a 2-inch-by-2-inch label. Instead, we prefer ... a comprehensive nutrition education initiative that will teach all of us how to choose healthy diets and how to use nutrition information on the label. Meat and poultry companies think nutrition labeling is a good idea. The more consumers learn about our products, the more confident they will be that meat and poultry foods are nutritious and leaner than ever. The final decision at USDA and FDA should mandate a label that is simple, informative, understandable and useful to a majority of Americans. VOICES ACROSS THE NATION ON NEWSPAPER POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS: SILVER SPRING, Md., Barbara Hays-Hamilton, 46, pol. organizer: They are important, but I look at all the endorsements. I look for the so-called special interests: labor and women's groups. I tend to look more at their opinions. Also, the papers have a greater impact on local elections because they might be more objective. PORTLAND, Ore., Monte Scott, 37, teacher: I make my own decisions. It's important for the candidates. The bigger the newspaper the better, but they aren't necessary. I subscribe to The Oregonian and I see it is endorsing a candidate I wouldn't vote for. I don't think it's the paper's area to get involved in. BEAUMONT, Texas, Jeanette Greer, 68, small-business owner: When they endorse someone, they sway a lot of people's votes, but I thought the media were supposed to be non-partisan. The media have been very slanted, especially toward Clinton. I don't know that I was surprised to see a lot of endorsements for Clinton. ATLANTA, Ga., Cynthia Powell, 29, secretary: They are very important; they can either make or break a candidate. People are looking for answers they can't reach themselves. They need someone to push them. CHICAGO, Ill., Michael B. Hyman, 40, attorney: Endorsements are not as important as they were years ago when there were more newspapers and not the instant media we have today. You don't see any endorsements by the electronic media. Maybe the perception is that they are more independent because of that. TOPIC - FEDERAL DEFICIT: M. Kathryn Eickhoff, head of consultants for Eickhoff Economics Inc. in New York, was interviewed by USA TODAY's Mark Memmott. WHAT WOULD A DEFICIT CRISIS LOOK LIKE? That's very difficult to say. You don't know whether you have a breakdown and get into something like a severe depression, or whether you just have very poor growth in which your standard of living steadily erodes and people wonder why their parents seemed to do so much better than they did. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WE ALL FACE FROM THIS $330 BUDGET DEFICIT? The underlying problem is a long-term one. The deficit is diverting savings in an economy that has relatively low savings to begin with. Secondly, most of the solutions to the deficit problem, at least those that involve raising taxes, tend to further diminish savings. IF WE'VE HAD LESS SAVINGS TO SPEND OR INVEST, HOW HAVE WE SURVIVED? In the '80s, this problem was overcome by the heavy inflows of foreign capital. Now there's likely to come a time, particularly in the '90s, when the demand for capital will increase around the world. That means either we won't get the capital we need or we'll pay very high interest rates. Issues & Debate Editor: Kate Coughlin. (1-919-855-3491) Making copies of USA TODAY Update (Copyright, 1992) for further distribution violates federal law. This article is copyright 1992 Gannett News Service. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM