"God bless America...."
Support
urgeckfor
FTC rule
Many Americans including the rich and rotund
are suffering from malnutrition, government studies
show.
A recent proposal by the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC), which would force food companies to support
their nutritional claims, might allay the situation.
,For years, advertisers' vague and misleading claims
, hayeadQ.d tp1puMic,misinforrT4iip(nrabout nutrients. ,
Americans have heard how one brand of cereal gives
them "Go" power and how empty-calorie' fruit drinks
are packed with Vitamin C. They continue to be misled
by. vague product claims of "more wholesome,"
without checking the package to see if if. indeed, is
true.
Because food dollars are shrinking rapidly, accurate
information about nutrients is becoming even more
crucial to consumers.
The proposed' FTC regulations would restrict
nutritional claims in five basic categories, including:
Emphatic claims, such as "loaded with
riboflavin."
Comparison claims, stating that "Brand X has five
times the vitamins found in Brand Y."
Generally worded claims: "Brand X is high in
nutrients."
Combination claims: "Cereal X when combined
with milk gives you nourishing Vitamin A."
Energy and calorie claims, such as "chock full of
energy" or "low in calorics. "
Currently, nutritional claims do not have to be
supported unless the FTC challenges them as unlawful.
Under the new measure, a food advertiser could not
make any claims, unless the product first was shown to
contain at least 35 -per ccn'Po'f vflt 'nutrfent's
if ecomrnended daily allowance --
t.
Packages would have to state these percentages.
They also would have to state the amount of protein,
carbohydrates and calories found in a normal serving.
Another rule proposed in a separate FTC staff
report, but not endorsed by the Commission would go
even further. It states that food advertisers who make
no nutritional claims also must supply consumers with
nutritional information.
Now seeking comments on the proposal, the FTC
should reconsider this needed, more stringent
regulation. Consumers can express their support of it
by writing to the FTC, Pennsylvania Avenue at 6th
Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580.
Without this all-encompassing clause, most adverti
sers will be clever enough to hide what really is in their
products or, more often, what is missing.
Jane Owens ;
Feeding population not the answer to food crisis
Editor's note: Chip Treen is a UNL
graduate assistant in political science.
Current efforts at solving the world food
crisis are aimed at feeding the rapidly
growing populations. This is to be done by
conservation measures, increases in food
production and increases in efficiency of food
use.
The aim is admirable, but it ultimately will
make the problem worse. Only time is being
bought. As with interest rates, the more that
is bought the greater the cost will be later.
In essence, feeding the hungry now may be
the worst possible solution to the problem.
Billions more hungry unemployed and
desperate people will be the result.
This has to do with the relationship
between population increases and. develop
ment. With only a few exceptions, nations
with slowing birth rates are those with
relatively high standards of living the
United States, Europe, Canada, Australia
andtheU.S.S.R.
Most of the population increases come in
the underdeveloped world, especially in
India, Africa and Latin America.
So far, there is no way to slow down
population growth rates short of developing
the country to the point where birthrates slow
naturally. Certainly the developing nations
are unwiliing to accept anything else.
But to develop the underdeveloped world
to that extent and fast enough to catch up
with the growing populations is impossible. ,
page 4
The earth simply cannot support its
population at a standard of living anywhere
near that enjoyed by much of the developed
world. Resources, especially water, are far
too limited.
The only other answer to the problem
involves a massive redistribution of wealth,
so resources might be. used more equally.
This possibility is so far from reality, it need
not be considered.
Even if this were possible, current wealth
spread equally around the world would leave
everyone on a subsistence level. At that
level, population would be growing every
where, instead of having the few areas now
where it is not.
cpsl '
now, the world's population is guaranteed to
be pillions greated by the year 2000.
-he prospectives are not bright. In some
areas of the world massive famine is probably
inevitable, no matter what is done. But there
are other areas where this is not the case.
pJlnJ97 .Dook' "Fane 1975," the
hunt brothers suggest dividing the
hungry world into three categories: those
rut will survive no matter what, those that
will survive if given some help, those that
won t survive no matter what is done.
ninL the, criteria for dividing these
nnn? LUP WOuld be an effective program of
sPtTiLinnn CO?tro1' aimed not Jst at
them popula1,ons bu also at lowering
inhm,SniU,i0rL' admitedly, is narsh, cruel,
mn e and definitely imperialistic. It
Kniertes massive famine in some areas,
in I, It) ,ow,s at least some areas a chance
DODUlat irn'c- ' Th' WiMin9 t0 limit their
Cse nf ?Pm-,Thi'3 SCCmS t0 permit the best
pvpm? - d resources available and
HvinttorevyVrT11 ,n a higher Standard f
.heuS'ir'T.l' s'M
Making the problem even worse is the age
distribution of the growing populations. Over
one-half of the world's population now is
under age 15. When they reach fertile age,
today's population problem will be minuscule
in comparison. Even if zero population
growth rates were reached on a global basis
I ily nebraskan
judgments on the rnst nf hn
be fdir and may not even work
of thP lhttPreSGnt r!otion of trving to keep all
analrrn it hm? mul,itudes alive only makes
an already bad situation worse
n nJheTrd' nature maV nave to take its
wnt fn l,Lquf ti0.n is whether or not we
want to make nature- -hition even worse.
friday, november 22, 1974