FDA to Change Serving Sizes

shyn52

Did you know that the serving sizes recommended by USDA & HHS in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans do not match those used by the FDA for package labeling? I knew they were different (having worked at HHS & USDA on nutrition) but never knew why.

The Wall Street Journal has a very clear explanation today Food for Thought on Healthy Eating Guidelines (http://on.wsj.com/1NsAxrH). It turns out that the Dietary Guidelines are based on what experts think we should eat (and gets revised every 5 years). But the FDA bases its serving sizes on a survey of what people said they ate in the late 1980s. FDA has now updated the survey - and since people now eat more than they did in the 1980s, the FDA is planning on changing the serving size to what people actually eat in 2015.

As an example, a serving of ice cream was 1/2 cup but it will now be 1 cup as listed on the food label. The serving size for a muffin will go from 85 grams to 110 grams. Don't many people look to food labels to see what they should eat? This is not good. And will it make MyFitnessPal's nutrition information that uses the label's serving size inaccurate?

HHS & USDA are now using measures (e.g., 1 ounce, 1/2 cup) to give 2015 recommendations instead of using "servings." Shouldn't the FDA labels also be based on the Dietary Guidelines to help us know what we should eat?

Would love to hear what you think - and maybe we should also be sending our thoughts to Mary Poos, acting director of the FDA's Office of Nutrition, Labeling and Dietary Supplements (mary.poos@fda.hhs.gov).

AmazonMayan

It sounds like it would be more realistic as far as people who don't look at the size of a serving size very closely. If the serving size is increased, the calories will also increase on the label.

I weigh by grams anyway. I had an english muffin this morning that was over in grams according to the package serving size, so I adjusted the calories accordingly.....

hesn92

I think it's a good thing. They should be more accurate in terms of what a reasonable serving is. Labels are often misleading, in my opinion.

For example, you can buy a muffin that is packaged in such a way that is meant to be eaten all at once, and yet the label says one serving is 1/3 of the muffin. This is just an example. I personally think that is not right. If you are going to package something into a single serving then the label should match. Another one that annoys me is individual bags of chips. At jimmy johns, the label says a serving size is half the bag.

Mr_Knight

Many many MFP entries will be blown up this - but those are generally poorly entered entries that never should have been in there in the first place.

I like this change. If anything it doesn't go far enough - it's been a long time since I've seen a serving of ice cream that was only one cup.

corgicake

Bigger portions are being promoted heavily enough the way it is. The purpose of food labeling is to help people eat healthy if they want to, starting with giving them a good idea of what "enough" for them means. The same serving sizes have been used since the eighties and we call them outdated because they're the bearers of bad news: we aren't eating as well. Leave 'em alone - we need something to remind us what sensible looks like, not a new system that tells the few still doing well that they're freaks who only eat half a portion of everything.

marm1962

AmazonMayan wrote: »

It sounds like it would be more realistic as far as people who don't look at the size of a serving size very closely. If the serving size is increased, the calories will also increase on the label.

I weigh by grams anyway. I had an english muffin this morning that was over in grams according to the package serving size, so I adjusted the calories accordingly.....

I also weigh in grams -- or ounces if grams are not available for reference (like with milk). I have noticed that a so called 1/2 cup or cup serving size does not match the gram serving size.

JPW1990

All the more reason to enter by weight in the first place. I really do wish they'd just nuke all the user entered ones and start from scratch with basic requirements.

CoachJen71

I don't like this. We should be striving to eat proper portions, not rewrite portion sizes to reflect our tendency to overeat.

ashleycde

AmazonMayan wrote: »

It sounds like it would be more realistic as far as people who don't look at the size of a serving size very closely. If the serving size is increased, the calories will also increase on the label.

My thoughts exactly. I feel that the average person seems to think they are consuming the serving listed on the packaging, when reality they are consuming more.

I don't think the purpose of this is to promote Americans to eat larger portions, I think the purpose is to make them aware of how many calories they are consuming in the portions they are already eating. I don't think the average American is looking at the portion size on any given food item and thinking to themselves, "OK, I will only eat that much, as listed on the box," and thus increasing the portion size will increase the portions eaten by the average American. I think the purpose is for the average American to see how many calories they are eating in one portion, and if the portion on the box listed is larger, this information will be more accurate to the portion they are consuming.

jennifershoo

hesn92 wrote: »

I think it's a good thing. They should be more accurate in terms of what a reasonable serving is. Labels are often misleading, in my opinion.

For example, you can buy a muffin that is packaged in such a way that is meant to be eaten all at once, and yet the label says one serving is 1/3 of the muffin. This is just an example. I personally think that is not right. If you are going to package something into a single serving then the label should match. Another one that annoys me is individual bags of chips. At jimmy johns, the label says a serving size is half the bag.

I hate when they do that too. Lets just put serving size = the whole muffin or the whole little bag of chips.
People tend to not read properly. This could be a good change. I hope.

jennifershoo

But at the end of the day, we eat too much. We shouldn't increase serving sizes but decrease the amount we put in our mouth.

AmazonMayan

hesn92 wrote: »

I think it's a good thing. They should be more accurate in terms of what a reasonable serving is. Labels are often misleading, in my opinion.

For example, you can buy a muffin that is packaged in such a way that is meant to be eaten all at once, and yet the label says one serving is 1/3 of the muffin. This is just an example. I personally think that is not right. If you are going to package something into a single serving then the label should match. Another one that annoys me is individual bags of chips. At jimmy johns, the label says a serving size is half the bag.

I agree with this too.

Anyone eat vienna sausages? My kids love them. One tiny little can says 2.5 servings. 150 calories per serving.

Most people I know that eat them, eat a whole can without hesitation. 375 calories. Tiny can.

eta: 14g fat per serving.

shyn52

Thanks for the comments. Good points on items that are packaged as single servings - I do think that people assume they should eat the whole thing so calories should reflect that. But I did assume that a serving size was a recommended amount. My bet is that this change will increase consumption if you aren't tracking calories.

JPW1990

shyn52 wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. Good points on items that are packaged as single servings - I do think that people assume they should eat the whole thing so calories should reflect that. But I did assume that a serving size was a recommended amount. My bet is that this change will increase consumption if you aren't tracking calories.

I think it's more likely that people who aren't really tracking calories don't read the label in the first place.

zyxst

CoachJen71 wrote: »

I don't like this. We should be striving to eat proper portions, not rewrite portion sizes to reflect our tendency to overeat.

What's a "proper" size? Half a cup? 28 grams?

ashleycde

JPW1990 wrote: »

shyn52 wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. Good points on items that are packaged as single servings - I do think that people assume they should eat the whole thing so calories should reflect that. But I did assume that a serving size was a recommended amount. My bet is that this change will increase consumption if you aren't tracking calories.

I think it's more likely that people who aren't really tracking calories don't read the label in the first place.

Or if they do, they read it incorrectly.

As I said before, I don't think the average American is looking at the portion size on any given food item and thinking to themselves, "OK, I will only eat that much, as listed on the box," and thus increasing the portion size will increase the portions eaten by the average American. I think the purpose is for the average American to see how many calories they are eating in one portion, and if the portion on the box listed is larger, this information will be more accurate to the portion they are consuming.

They will better see the number of calories in a portion reflected in the portion they are eating. The portion they are eating is likely going to be the same, whether or not the portion on the side of the box changes. No one is eating 1/3 of a muffin, as someone mentioned before. No one. Unless maybe 3 really broke college students are sharing a muffin, I really can't imagine a world where the average American is sticking the portion listed on the packaging of foods.

snikkins

I am definitely glad that they are changing the serving size to properly reflect the expectation of whatever item it is, like the muffin example. Ramen is another example. No one is eating half the block and half the seasoning.

No one.

AmazonMayan

oh I forgot about ramen LOL I was not happy the first time I read that. I have read most nutrition labels for years, but for some reason, didn't read ramen. There were times I ate 2 packs so what is that...almost 800 calories?

snikkins

Yup! Just rude. lol

hedwardsb

shyn52 wrote: »

Thanks for the comments. Good points on items that are packaged as single servings - I do think that people assume they should eat the whole thing so calories should reflect that. But I did assume that a serving size was a recommended amount. My bet is that this change will increase consumption if you aren't tracking calories.

I think people who aren't tracking calories are going to eat however much they want without a single thought to serving size. That's what I did in my twenties when I could eat whatever I wanted and weigh 110 pounds. I know when my son is scooping ice cream, he's not giving a single thought to to the fact that a serving is 1/2 a cup. He's scooping it into a bowl not one of the small ramekins I'd be using.
Another thought, the nutritional information on the package includes what percentage of your daily calories based on a 2,000 calorie diet, so some guidance will continue to be available in terms of keeping it reasonable.

dbmata

wait, people really think the FDA has any relevance?
lulz.

tat2cookie

Don't get me started on what I think of the FDA. But the serving sizes will be interesting. It's already weird to see how they decide serving sizes. Can of tuna fish has 2.5 servings, one of those crappy cardboard pizzas serves 16! Most people just look at the calories and not the serving size and that is what most food companies bank on. So now, like previously used, ice cream, a customer sees 200 cal per serving, oh ok that's not so bad. If this going into affect they will see 800 cal per serving and there will now be rivers of tears in the frozen food section. It will be interesting to say the least.

barbecuesauce

I'm not sure it's actually going to affect behavior (but I still hope they study whether it does). If you read labels, it's not going to affect the way you eat (unless you're just really terrible at math and can't figure .5 servings), and if you don't, you're already eating muffins and ice cream in those quantities.

And those of us on MFP are going to keep eating 19 gram servings of peanut butter.

jessicalranallo

I think it is good because so many people see the calories and think good but don't look at what a serving size is and how many servings per container. I also think it might make companies look at how unhealthy the crap they are serving really is when they have to say 300 calories for a 1cup serving of ice cream instead of a 150 calorie 1/2 cup serving. Or 450 calories for a small bag of chips. We have already seen beverage companies do something similar with 20oz sodas where now it gives you how much is in the whole container and how much is a serving so you can see both and know what you are really consuming. In the end, people who want to eat healthy will still get the info they need on the packaging and maybe those that 'think' they are eating healthy will get a wake-up call when they see just how much their 'serving' really costs them in calories/fat/carbs/etc

ashleycde

snikkins wrote: »

I am definitely glad that they are changing the serving size to properly reflect the expectation of whatever item it is, like the muffin example. Ramen is another example. No one is eating half the block and half the seasoning.

No one.

Exactly. Even broke college kids can afford to eat a whole package of ramen and not split it with a friend. I hope.

tomatoey

It's good for people to have a realistic heads up. The disconnect between what's on the package and what people eat doesn't help them.

Mr_Knight

barbecuesauce wrote: »

If you read labels, it's not going to affect the way you eat (unless you're just really terrible at math and can't figure .5 servings), and if you don't, you're already eating muffins and ice cream in those quantities.

Unless someone is preparing their own food regularly, there is a very good chance they have no idea how much (little!) "half a cup" really is. IMO serving sizes on labels should reflect a typical eating pattern - the ramen example is perfect.

And a tub of Ben & Jerrys...in the real world, most of the time, that is at most two servings.

Daiako

Seems like a good idea to me. Serving size arbitrarily reflected eating habits of people in the 80's, as opposed to actually being based on something meaningful, so why shouldn't they now be based on eating habits of the majority of people today?

It won't change anything for me. A serving of tuna will still be a whole can. A serving of chicken will still be 8-10 ounces. /shrug

Francl27

I like the changes. I'm sure some of us have been burned looking at calories then realizing too late that it was only for 1/2 the package or something.

The database is going to be a huge mess though, I'm dreading it.

SilverRose89

It's a good idea. My annoyance is cereal. 30g just is not what most people will pour into a bowl when they want some cereal. I know that was the one I was shocked at when I realised how small a 'serving' is.

This won't make people eat more, IMO. The people who already choose to eat 30g of cereal will continue, but it might actually mean calories per serving accurately reflect what people see a serving as, which can only be a good thing.

Kalici

SilverRose89 wrote: »

It's a good idea. My annoyance is cereal. 30g just is not what most people will pour into a bowl when they want some cereal. I know that was the one I was shocked at when I realised how small a 'serving' is.

I had a hysterical laughing fit the first time I weighed out cereal. I don't eat it anymore, it isn't worth it in my opinion.