Aa
FDA: Obamacare’s Calorie-Count Mandate Now In Effect—But Not Enforcable
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71814
Home » News » Politics
CNSNews.com
FDA: Obamacare’s Calorie-Count Mandate Now In Effect—But Not Enforcable
Friday, August 27, 2010
By Chris Neefus
President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - A mandate buried in the health-care bill President Barack Obama signed in March is now confounding not only the vending-machine operators who are supposed to follow it but also the federal regulators who are supposed to enforce it.
The Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the provisions in Obamacare that mandate that restaurant owners and vending-machine operators disclose the calorie contents of the foods they sell retroactively took effect on the day Obama signed the bill.
The FDA, however, has not been able to give vending-machine operators complete and final guidance on how they should make their machines comply with the law, thus causing “confusion” and “frustration” in the industry, and leading the agency to refrain for now from enforcing the provision.
Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) says companies with 20 or more restaurants or vending machines must disclose nutrition content for standard menu items, and that for vending machines in particular, the company “shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.”
The FDA has ruled that this section of the law went into effect on March 23, 2010, when President Obama signed it, and has laid out detailed instructions for how chain restaurants should display the calorie counts of each menu item, along with definitions of each term involved in the regulation. The FDA has not managed to give similarly detailed guidance to vending machine operators. In fact, the FDA guidance produced on the question thus far has only reiterated the law’s mandate that companies that operate 20 or more vending machines must “immediately disclose, in a clear and conspicuous manner,” the number of calories contained in each snack item or drink.
Neal Monroe, vice president of government affairs at the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) which represents vending machine operators, says he was told by the FDA that they were “still trying to get their arms around” how to implement the provisions of the law. The resulting confusion is a problem for people in his industry.
“There’s definitely confusion and a little bit of frustration from our folks who want to comply with the regulations,” Monroe told CNSNews.com. “They want to provide this information to their customers.”
Monroe pointed out that people “recognize that the snacks and the drinks have the nutritional facts panel already on the packaging. It’s just a unique situation.”
According to the FDA, it hopes to issue a final guidance to vending machine operators by December. But Monroe says the agency told him on a conference call it could not promise anything until the spring.
“There was a conference call with the Food and Drug Administration this week, and they’re hoping to provide us guidance sooner rather than later, but they can’t promise any guidance or regulations until March of next year,” he said.
That would mean a full year had passed between Obama signing the law and a federal regulatory agency figuring out how to enforce it.
The FDA did not respond to an inquiry from CNSNews.com.
The current guidance on the vending-machine mandate concedes: “FDA is aware that industry may need additional guidance from FDA and time to comply with the provisions of section 4205 that became requirements immediately upon enactment of the law. Accordingly, FDA expects to refrain from initiating enforcement action until after a time period established in the final guidance. FDA is interested in comments on the appropriate time period for enforcement after the issuance of final guidance. FDA anticipates issuing final guidance in December 2010.
Vending machine operators, meanwhile, are worried about whether their small businesses will survive this single federal regulation that was sandwiched into the massive health care bill.
“To give you an idea of the economic impact, a vending operator who has just 20 machines is making less than $4,000 a year in profit,” said Monroe. “And these regulations cost between $3 and $100 per machine.”
“This could be an enormous economic hit for them,” he told CNSNews.com.
“What we are concerned about is the impact of the regulation on our small business people in this economic situation,” said Monroe. “The climate is pretty tough. As unemployment increases, there are fewer workers in the factories, there are fewer people buying snacks, so this is a—a pretty tough economic hit.”
Monroe faulted the vagueness of the original statute in the health care bill for some of the current uncertainty. “In a 2,000-plus page bill, vending had one sentence (that will affect) at least 90 percent of the industry,” he said.
Home » News » Politics
CNSNews.com
FDA: Obamacare’s Calorie-Count Mandate Now In Effect—But Not Enforcable
Friday, August 27, 2010
By Chris Neefus
President Barack Obama speaks in Seattle on Tuesday, August 17, 2010. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)
(CNSNews.com) - A mandate buried in the health-care bill President Barack Obama signed in March is now confounding not only the vending-machine operators who are supposed to follow it but also the federal regulators who are supposed to enforce it.
The Food and Drug Administration has ruled that the provisions in Obamacare that mandate that restaurant owners and vending-machine operators disclose the calorie contents of the foods they sell retroactively took effect on the day Obama signed the bill.
The FDA, however, has not been able to give vending-machine operators complete and final guidance on how they should make their machines comply with the law, thus causing “confusion” and “frustration” in the industry, and leading the agency to refrain for now from enforcing the provision.
Section 4205 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) says companies with 20 or more restaurants or vending machines must disclose nutrition content for standard menu items, and that for vending machines in particular, the company “shall provide a sign in close proximity to each article of food or the selection button that includes a clear and conspicuous statement disclosing the number of calories contained in the article.”
The FDA has ruled that this section of the law went into effect on March 23, 2010, when President Obama signed it, and has laid out detailed instructions for how chain restaurants should display the calorie counts of each menu item, along with definitions of each term involved in the regulation. The FDA has not managed to give similarly detailed guidance to vending machine operators. In fact, the FDA guidance produced on the question thus far has only reiterated the law’s mandate that companies that operate 20 or more vending machines must “immediately disclose, in a clear and conspicuous manner,” the number of calories contained in each snack item or drink.
Neal Monroe, vice president of government affairs at the National Automatic Merchandising Association (NAMA) which represents vending machine operators, says he was told by the FDA that they were “still trying to get their arms around” how to implement the provisions of the law. The resulting confusion is a problem for people in his industry.
“There’s definitely confusion and a little bit of frustration from our folks who want to comply with the regulations,” Monroe told CNSNews.com. “They want to provide this information to their customers.”
Monroe pointed out that people “recognize that the snacks and the drinks have the nutritional facts panel already on the packaging. It’s just a unique situation.”
According to the FDA, it hopes to issue a final guidance to vending machine operators by December. But Monroe says the agency told him on a conference call it could not promise anything until the spring.
“There was a conference call with the Food and Drug Administration this week, and they’re hoping to provide us guidance sooner rather than later, but they can’t promise any guidance or regulations until March of next year,” he said.
That would mean a full year had passed between Obama signing the law and a federal regulatory agency figuring out how to enforce it.
The FDA did not respond to an inquiry from CNSNews.com.
The current guidance on the vending-machine mandate concedes: “FDA is aware that industry may need additional guidance from FDA and time to comply with the provisions of section 4205 that became requirements immediately upon enactment of the law. Accordingly, FDA expects to refrain from initiating enforcement action until after a time period established in the final guidance. FDA is interested in comments on the appropriate time period for enforcement after the issuance of final guidance. FDA anticipates issuing final guidance in December 2010.
Vending machine operators, meanwhile, are worried about whether their small businesses will survive this single federal regulation that was sandwiched into the massive health care bill.
“To give you an idea of the economic impact, a vending operator who has just 20 machines is making less than $4,000 a year in profit,” said Monroe. “And these regulations cost between $3 and $100 per machine.”
“This could be an enormous economic hit for them,” he told CNSNews.com.
“What we are concerned about is the impact of the regulation on our small business people in this economic situation,” said Monroe. “The climate is pretty tough. As unemployment increases, there are fewer workers in the factories, there are fewer people buying snacks, so this is a—a pretty tough economic hit.”
Monroe faulted the vagueness of the original statute in the health care bill for some of the current uncertainty. “In a 2,000-plus page bill, vending had one sentence (that will affect) at least 90 percent of the industry,” he said.
It is a matter of transparancy. We have a right to know what is put in our food, and make choices based on that information. I do not see that as something that is taking away rights, rather adding to them. Guess its all in how you look at it.
I guess I just don't see this as regulation of any sort. Only information. Once again, I would understand your anger and frustration if someone started telling you what you could and couldn't eat, but I have no problem with providing information. We don't have this on our vending machines...the ingredients and information is on the actual package, same as at the grocery store. We do have this is restaurants, although not all of them...it is in places like McDonalds, etc. Our costs haven't increased at all. I pay the same for a Big Mac as I always did.
Smoking...ah yes. Something I too have struggled with for many years. I too quit before I started trying to get pregnant and still struggle with it today. It's hard. Some do get lucky and skip the negative effects...but do I want my son to take it up? Not on your life. So the big warnings and high cost is a good thing as far as I am concerned. Anything that deters him.
I guess I like knowing what's in things...I like to know the salt content, cholesterol, etc. Yes, I pretty much know what is good and what isn't, but in this day and age of convenience foods, many claiming to be low in fat, cholesterol, etc. I find this information exceedingly helpful. Again, I would be up in arms if someone was making my food choices for me...that's not right. But to give me the extra info I may need to make healthy choices for myself and my family...I just don't see the fuss. This isn't regulation...it's information.
Smoking...ah yes. Something I too have struggled with for many years. I too quit before I started trying to get pregnant and still struggle with it today. It's hard. Some do get lucky and skip the negative effects...but do I want my son to take it up? Not on your life. So the big warnings and high cost is a good thing as far as I am concerned. Anything that deters him.
I guess I like knowing what's in things...I like to know the salt content, cholesterol, etc. Yes, I pretty much know what is good and what isn't, but in this day and age of convenience foods, many claiming to be low in fat, cholesterol, etc. I find this information exceedingly helpful. Again, I would be up in arms if someone was making my food choices for me...that's not right. But to give me the extra info I may need to make healthy choices for myself and my family...I just don't see the fuss. This isn't regulation...it's information.
This creates unneeded regulations that lead to added costs for the suppliers and the vendors. Lets not be naive and say this isn't going to affect the cost. And when the calorie police start coming in, God help us all.
Now, that being said, I have no problem with people knowing exactly what they're eating and how many calories and carbs etc. are in their food. I check the labels myself. But do you really believe that anyone confuses a Twinkie with a banana. And that bag of Cheetos, they know that's not a bunch of grapes. People know that junk food out of a machine is not the most nutritious stuff around. Most of these people just don't flat care. AND NO ONE has the right to tell them they can't eat it. If someone wants to be stupid enough to eat Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, so be it. Yea, they'll end up looking like the broad side of a barn but that is their business. And yes, the chances they'll die of a heart disease is greatly increased. But they know this. It's their business. Keep the food police out of our kitchens and away from our choices at the store. And Michelle Obama appears to be in need of losing a couple of pounds herself. I resent someone who appears to have a couple of sizes and a few pounds on me telling what I can and can't eat.
At the allergist the other day. He asked me about my smoking. I'm not proud of being a smoker but I do enjoy it. After a long lecture, he ordered a breathing test for me just to show me how badly impaired my lungs and breathing are. I took the test and scored a 110. That is a high score even for a non smoker. I've had a chest X Ray this year that was clear and a normal EKG. I almost felt sorry for him. He had his this big speech prepared and couldn't give it. Just said some people seem to be immune to the bad effects of smoking and he guesses I'm one of them. And yes, I've tried several times to quit and did so successfully with each pregnancy. But went right back to it after they were born. Oh well. My point is that not everything the government wants to regulate or tax out of existence is going to kill everyone. And If we want to kill ourselves, what business is it of theirs? Keep the government out of our lives!!! Tell them to read the Constitution and regulate ONLY those things that they are allowed to under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Now, that being said, I have no problem with people knowing exactly what they're eating and how many calories and carbs etc. are in their food. I check the labels myself. But do you really believe that anyone confuses a Twinkie with a banana. And that bag of Cheetos, they know that's not a bunch of grapes. People know that junk food out of a machine is not the most nutritious stuff around. Most of these people just don't flat care. AND NO ONE has the right to tell them they can't eat it. If someone wants to be stupid enough to eat Big Macs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, so be it. Yea, they'll end up looking like the broad side of a barn but that is their business. And yes, the chances they'll die of a heart disease is greatly increased. But they know this. It's their business. Keep the food police out of our kitchens and away from our choices at the store. And Michelle Obama appears to be in need of losing a couple of pounds herself. I resent someone who appears to have a couple of sizes and a few pounds on me telling what I can and can't eat.
At the allergist the other day. He asked me about my smoking. I'm not proud of being a smoker but I do enjoy it. After a long lecture, he ordered a breathing test for me just to show me how badly impaired my lungs and breathing are. I took the test and scored a 110. That is a high score even for a non smoker. I've had a chest X Ray this year that was clear and a normal EKG. I almost felt sorry for him. He had his this big speech prepared and couldn't give it. Just said some people seem to be immune to the bad effects of smoking and he guesses I'm one of them. And yes, I've tried several times to quit and did so successfully with each pregnancy. But went right back to it after they were born. Oh well. My point is that not everything the government wants to regulate or tax out of existence is going to kill everyone. And If we want to kill ourselves, what business is it of theirs? Keep the government out of our lives!!! Tell them to read the Constitution and regulate ONLY those things that they are allowed to under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
.Dont mind you asking but I have had a busy Sunday may answer you in a few days .....
May I ask a question on your comment, as I am truly curious. How does this help get control of your lives? That would make perfect sense to me if they were dictating to you what you could and could not eat...I would then support your comment 100% and I can tell you, I would not like it either. But to give you the information on what you are eating in order to allow you to make your own choices, isn't that positive? Because I honestly cannot find the difference between this and labels on food. I know not everyone reads them, and that is their right. But I do find that information helpful in making good decisions for my family. Just wondering how this impacts the control issue?
It also helps big government get bigger and control more of our lives ..and no doubt cost more ...you say here it was sandwiched into the massive nonsensical health care bill....
I would be thoroughly ticked if someone started dictating to me what I could eat, and your right, common sense should apply. But I don't think it's bad to have "labels" on menus...I like it. I can see things like salt content and cholesterol. My husband has high cholesterol and he likes to know as well. As for the vending machines...I am a big proponate of not serving junk food in schools. Children aren't able yet to make those good choices (for the most part anyway), so I like the idea of the temptation being removed. It is our job as parents to police it, but we can't be with them at school everyday. I support that. But as an adult, I like to make my own choices. I have read labels at the grocery store for years now...I don't see this as any different.
BTW...ever seen a pack of cigarettes in Canada? Huge labels with warnings, along with inserts on help to quit smoking. Law here...more aimed at kids as adults know of course. But the idea is to scare kids into not starting. Again, not a bad thing...they are still legal if your over 18.
BTW...ever seen a pack of cigarettes in Canada? Huge labels with warnings, along with inserts on help to quit smoking. Law here...more aimed at kids as adults know of course. But the idea is to scare kids into not starting. Again, not a bad thing...they are still legal if your over 18.
I have not researched this issue but I do find myself wondering what it is that people dont get. I mean, we as a people have gotten fat and lazy. Our children are turning out the same. It affects our health, just like smoking, drinking etc.
But what I dont get is why in the world we NEED to be told this by government or anyone else. Can we not see it ourselves and take it upon our selves to remedy it? If we are eating too much to the point of getting fat, does it not make sense to anyone other than me to push yourself away from the table. And if we cannot nor want to do that, exercise would go a long way. I am a smoker and for a long while now, I have paid the penalty for that, from paying the excessive price to being denied for health care as a result of the damage I have caused my body.
I would have to research this further, but I dont think anyone of us wants to be told what we can and cannot have. I do no there was an issue of vending machines and what goes into them in the schools, which I do agree with on common sense principals for children. When mine were small they were not allowed to eat an unlimited amount of sugar and salt either.
But what I dont get is why in the world we NEED to be told this by government or anyone else. Can we not see it ourselves and take it upon our selves to remedy it? If we are eating too much to the point of getting fat, does it not make sense to anyone other than me to push yourself away from the table. And if we cannot nor want to do that, exercise would go a long way. I am a smoker and for a long while now, I have paid the penalty for that, from paying the excessive price to being denied for health care as a result of the damage I have caused my body.
I would have to research this further, but I dont think anyone of us wants to be told what we can and cannot have. I do no there was an issue of vending machines and what goes into them in the schools, which I do agree with on common sense principals for children. When mine were small they were not allowed to eat an unlimited amount of sugar and salt either.
We have had this in place here for some time now. All restaurants have to disclose calorie count and nutritional information on their menus. It's no different then reading the label at the grocery store, and quite frankly it's great. We still make our own choices as to what to eat...no one tells us that. But we make informed choices, and that is a good thing. Works well for us here!
Well they should not in any way be able to restrict what food people can eat (there are already specific regulations within the FDA as regards artificial preservatives but that is another issue, that''s only if they are found to be unsafe) but I do want to know the ingredients of what I eat (calorie, cholesterol count, fat, some people can't tolerate Nutrasweet and its unsafe for them, I can't drink any juice with grapefruit juice or it will cause a dangerous interaction with one of my medications, this is not uncommon). Anyway almost all food from a vending machine is snack food that is already labelled. I think people should know the content of what they are eating anywhere they go. Not all people are able to eat at home at all times (a good example is truck drivers who basically rely on food from restaurants and take out places as they are always on the road). I don't think it will bankrupt anyone. People can eat what they chose and its a person choice what they eat. All the food in the supermarket and other grocery stores is labelled and people still buy food with high fat content. Labeling food is not the same as the regulations in N.Y.C. that made regulations on bake sales (this is a fact). That to me is going way too far and another issue in itself.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
