Annoyance: Deceptive Serving Sizes
jezahb
Posts: 73 Member
So this is something I noticed a while ago, but today at the store I noticed it again and it really ticks me off. The deceptive serving sizes on some foods is awful. Good example is poptarts, the serving size is ONE poptart...not one packet of poptarts which comes with 2 tarts in it...ONE poptart. Nobody I know opens a poptart foil package and eats only one, as the package is not resealable and they go stale quickly. They also list the calories on the front so they LOOK healthy if you don't see the super fine print over the nutrition info saying "Per one poptart". Same thing with Ramen, one package of ramen is supposedly 2 servings. Yea, right. Even the butterfinger king size candy bar is 3 servings, even though the bar is broken up into 2 smaller pieces which leads you to assume it is 2 servings...not 3.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
This kinda "gotcha" labeling irritates me, and I feel like there should be some FDA rule that if your packaging is clearly broken up in a way that appears as a single serving you cannot list the serving size as less than that. While most of these foods listed are unhealthy to begin with, and ones I no longer eat, it seems to me that part of the obesity issue might be this kind of labeling. People are likely grossly underestimating the calories in what they eat due to companies purposely being deceitful.
0
Replies
-
There are some FDA regulations but they just aren't enough. Not too long ago a 20z soda was labeled as 2.5 servings instead of the 1 serving it is labeled today0
-
Completely agree.0
-
Welcome to food industry marketing 101. Their sole goal is to get you to eat more of their food. They WANT to confuse you.0
-
I bought a non-resealable drink a little while back which was 1.3 servings. ???0
-
Ha!
Also, in before personal responsibility / what's wrong with wanting to make money crew0 -
Yes, they lie big and tell the truth in very small print. Yes, it's annoying. I'm not even sure why they do it. Lying about the calories will not entice anyone who actually cares about them. People who care will read the label.
Most people who are eating King Sized candy bars do not really care about how many calories they're taking in. They could put "5000 Calories!" on the front of the package and people would still buy them and eat them.
That heart attack restaurant ADVERTISES that the things are terrible for you. They have had two mascot-spokesmen who ate lots of their food and then died. People lined up to get in.
McDonald's has the calories on the menu. I haven't heard one person say, "Wow! I sure was surprised about those calories! I had no idea that food was so fattening! I'm not going to eat that now!" People are like, "Can I have a Big Mac...and a large fry and..." They don't care.
They're so ridiculous, wasting time and money lying about the calories. All they do is get people who care to not trust them. They should just be honest.0 -
Yes, they lie big and tell the truth in very small print. Yes, it's annoying. I'm not even sure why they do it. Lying about the calories will not entice anyone who actually cares about them. People who care will read the label.
Most people who are eating King Sized candy bars do not really care about how many calories they're taking in. They could put "5000 Calories!" on the front of the package and people would still buy them and eat them.
That heart Attack restaurant ADVERTISES that the things are terrible for you. They have had two mascot-spokesmen who died. People lined up to get in.
McDonald's has the calories on the menu. I haven't heard one person say, "Wow! I sure was surprised about those calories! I'm not going to eat that now!"
They're so ridiculous, wasting time and money lying about the calories. All they do is get people who care to not trust them. They should just be honest.
Well, reasonably accurate calorie counts help people who are trying to watch them .
And people definitely are surprised by amounts once they start0 -
Yes, it would be nice if they were just honest and up-front about it. Agreed.Yes, they lie big and tell the truth in very small print. Yes, it's annoying. I'm not even sure why they do it. Lying about the calories will not entice anyone who actually cares about them. People who care will read the label.
Most people who are eating King Sized candy bars do not really care about how many calories they're taking in. They could put "5000 Calories!" on the front of the package and people would still buy them and eat them.
That heart Attack restaurant ADVERTISES that the things are terrible for you. They have had two mascot-spokesmen who died. People lined up to get in.
McDonald's has the calories on the menu. I haven't heard one person say, "Wow! I sure was surprised about those calories! I'm not going to eat that now!"
They're so ridiculous, wasting time and money lying about the calories. All they do is get people who care to not trust them. They should just be honest.
Well, reasonably accurate calorie counts help people who are trying to watch them .
And people definitely are surprised by amounts once they start
0 -
Some people, especially those for whom English is a second language, don't understand food labels or how to read them. The food industry really preys on them.0
-
Yup, we're in agreement, @KalikelSome people, especially those for whom English is a second language, don't understand food labels or how to read them. The food industry really preys on them.
True. And even native speakers have better and worse literacy. Food should be labelled in the plainest (and most honest) language possible.0 -
Agree, it's obnoxious. A lot of it is done so that the front of the box can claim "fat-free" or "only 2g of sugar!" or some such, because they manipulated the serving size to be able to make virtually bs claims about their product.
On the flip side, some companies have serving sizes that make life more complicated than need be. Like why does a box of Oreos think I'm interested in the nutrition of 2 Oreos instead of just one? Why does a bag of Murray's Gingersnaps think I want to know the nutrition of 5 gingersnaps instead of just one? Why does a box of Hostess tell me the nutrition of 2 Twinkies (individually wrapped, mind) instead of just one? But yet Hostess will tell me the nutrition of just one Ding-Dong so there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it all!
0 -
Serving sizes have been a pet peeve of mine for years. I think they are getting a bit better than they were, but still not great.
I have had to correct food information in the food database here on a few occasions because someone entered a package of something as 1 serving when it is actually 2.
Most recently for me ... I'm standing in the yogurt section checking out calories on the yogurts. All are the same size or pretty close to it ... what I would consider 1 serving. But my favourite yogurt is, for some unknown reason, 2 servings and therefore the calorie content doubles making it the highest calorie yogurt on the shelf.0 -
They used to list one and people got in a huge uproar for a while about how they listed serving sizes that were smaller than anyone actually ate. So, they passed laws about how the serving sizes had to be bigger.Lourdesong wrote: »Agree, it's obnoxious. A lot of it is done so that the front of the box can claim "fat-free" or "only 2g of sugar!" or some such, because they manipulated the serving size to be able to make virtually bs claims about their product.
On the flip side, some companies have serving sizes that make life more complicated than need be. Like why does a box of Oreos think I'm interested in the nutrition of 2 Oreos instead of just one? Why does a bag of Murray's Gingersnaps think I want to know the nutrition of 5 gingersnaps instead of just one? Why does a box of Hostess tell me the nutrition of 2 Twinkies (individually wrapped, mind) instead of just one? But yet Hostess will tell me the nutrition of just one Ding-Dong so there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it all!
It was a big thing for a while. I don't remember when that was. Could've been 20 years now. I just don't know.
0 -
I was mildly annoyed when I bought a box of muesli over the weekend - since I don't control my portions that well when poring from a box I decided to preportion everything. The box was supposed to give 11 x 50g servings - the box total was 580g so actually either every serve is 58g or there is one small left over 30g serve0
-
Is it deceptive if it's written? And Ew to poptarts and ramen. Meat and fresh veggies don't have that problem!-10
-
Yes, they lie big and tell the truth in very small print. Yes, it's annoying. I'm not even sure why they do it. Lying about the calories will not entice anyone who actually cares about them. People who care will read the label.
Most people who are eating King Sized candy bars do not really care about how many calories they're taking in. They could put "5000 Calories!" on the front of the package and people would still buy them and eat them.
That heart Attack restaurant ADVERTISES that the things are terrible for you. They have had two mascot-spokesmen who died. People lined up to get in.
McDonald's has the calories on the menu. I haven't heard one person say, "Wow! I sure was surprised about those calories! I'm not going to eat that now!"
They're so ridiculous, wasting time and money lying about the calories. All they do is get people who care to not trust them. They should just be honest.
Well, reasonably accurate calorie counts help people who are trying to watch them .
And people definitely are surprised by amounts once they start
^^^I just HAD to look up about the comment about the Heart Attack Restaurant......
Honestly, I thought it was a joke....OMG
.....are there any still opened after all the deaths etc????
....and couldn't agree more about difficult to understand the context of nutritional and calorific content in packaged foods and plus the writing is DAMN small too boot. I am having to take reading glasses with me now and even then it is a struggle.
0 -
I find this with chocolate milk. A carton of milk you generally wouldn't share, like 600ml like a coke but it actually contains 2 servings.
Not sure if it's the same else where but here the nutritional information is based on one serving and 100g. Maybe a 3rd column is needed for the total product.
Tub of icecream 150 cal per serve, 400 per 100g and 5000 for the entire tub.
0 -
Ha, derail was here, sorry0
-
Lourdesong wrote: »Agree, it's obnoxious. A lot of it is done so that the front of the box can claim "fat-free" or "only 2g of sugar!" or some such, because they manipulated the serving size to be able to make virtually bs claims about their product.
On the flip side, some companies have serving sizes that make life more complicated than need be. Like why does a box of Oreos think I'm interested in the nutrition of 2 Oreos instead of just one? Why does a bag of Murray's Gingersnaps think I want to know the nutrition of 5 gingersnaps instead of just one? Why does a box of Hostess tell me the nutrition of 2 Twinkies (individually wrapped, mind) instead of just one? But yet Hostess will tell me the nutrition of just one Ding-Dong so there seems to be no rhyme or reason to it all!
And that's what annoys me the most! You might log two servings of something and there is no fat in your macros, even though you've consumed at least one gram.
I watched a show about the Heart Attack Restaurant once. The guy's whole point is to wake people up about the way we eat (or so he says). He seems to be making money hand over fist doing it and I'm not sure how awake we are.0 -
I find this with chocolate milk. A carton of milk you generally wouldn't share, like 600ml like a coke but it actually contains 2 servings.
Not sure if it's the same else where but here the nutritional information is based on one serving and 100g. Maybe a 3rd column is needed for the total product.
Tub of icecream 150 cal per serve, 400 per 100g and 5000 for the entire tub.
I'd forgotten the choc milk issue - last time I bought what is obviously intended for 1 person the label said 2.4 serves0 -
Spreyton22K wrote: »Yes, they lie big and tell the truth in very small print. Yes, it's annoying. I'm not even sure why they do it. Lying about the calories will not entice anyone who actually cares about them. People who care will read the label.
Most people who are eating King Sized candy bars do not really care about how many calories they're taking in. They could put "5000 Calories!" on the front of the package and people would still buy them and eat them.
That heart Attack restaurant ADVERTISES that the things are terrible for you. They have had two mascot-spokesmen who died. People lined up to get in.
McDonald's has the calories on the menu. I haven't heard one person say, "Wow! I sure was surprised about those calories! I'm not going to eat that now!"
They're so ridiculous, wasting time and money lying about the calories. All they do is get people who care to not trust them. They should just be honest.
Well, reasonably accurate calorie counts help people who are trying to watch them .
And people definitely are surprised by amounts once they start
^^^I just HAD to look up about the comment about the Heart Attack Restaurant......
Honestly, I thought it was a joke....OMG .....are there any still opened after all the deaths etc????
....and couldn't agree more about difficult to understand the context of nutritional and calorific content in packaged foods and plus the writing is DAMN small too boot. I am having to take reading glasses with me now and even then it is a struggle.
That restaurant is one of the most obscene expressions of capitalism I can imagine. Seriously
I think it is still open!
http://www.heartattackgrill.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_Attack_Grill
0 -
I find this with chocolate milk. A carton of milk you generally wouldn't share, like 600ml like a coke but it actually contains 2 servings.
Not sure if it's the same else where but here the nutritional information is based on one serving and 100g. Maybe a 3rd column is needed for the total product.
Tub of icecream 150 cal per serve, 400 per 100g and 5000 for the entire tub.
I'd forgotten the choc milk issue - last time I bought what is obviously intended for 1 person the label said 2.4 serves
What do they expect us to do, pass the drink around? It doesn't come with disposable cups to seperate the drink.
Most chocolate milks seem to be sold in takeaway situations so you aren't home with cups etc.0 -
I don't know from Pop Tarts because I have never had one (or two!) but you really have to read EVERYTHING, very carefully. The less processed food you eat, the less this is a problem.
The one that got me for a long time was frozen yakisoba veggie noodle bowls from Costco. The package is tiny and I never saw the box (a relative would split them with me) so I assumed for ages that they were one serving. Nope! Two servings and way too many carbs for one meal.
I'm also annoyed by Asian noodles that come pre-divided into 3 servings when the package says there should be five servings. You have to open tiny, futzy ribbons and re-divide and weigh the noodles. It's a pain. I have several types of pasta from Japan, China and Vietnam...all of them have this problem.0 -
You just have to make sure you read the labels and log whatever portion you eat. Sometime I eat half of the suggested portion size. Sometimes I eat 3 times as much. A serving is always going to mean something totally different to different people. I don't see a way that it could ever be fully standardised.
In Australia (I don't know about the rest of the world) all labels have to have the nutrition information per serving and per 100g. Since the serving size is more or less meaningless I just read the per 100g information.
You just have to be aware and it shouldn't be a problem (understanding this should be taught at schools imo)
0 -
kyrannosaurus wrote: »You just have to make sure you read the labels and log whatever portion you eat. Sometime I eat half of the suggested portion size. Sometimes I eat 3 times as much. A serving is always going to mean something totally different to different people. I don't see a way that it could ever be fully standardised.
In Australia (I don't know about the rest of the world) all labels have to have the nutrition information per serving and per 100g. Since the serving size is more or less meaningless I just read the per 100g information.
You just have to be aware and it shouldn't be a problem (understanding this should be taught at schools imo)
Yeah we're lucky here is Aus with our labelling, in the US it's pretty much all by 'serving' which is an arbitrary number set by the company (often with a goal in mind, such as making it small enough that they can round down under the labelling laws so they can say x% fat free! or Zero calorie!)0 -
^^^^ Merkavar you could try singing "Pass the Choccy on the left hand side......"
Ew....to everything about the Heart Attack Grill. There seems to be quite a few fatalities linked with this business....I guess each to their own but Oh My.....8,000 calories for a burger and endless chips.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Alatariel75 wrote: »kyrannosaurus wrote: »You just have to make sure you read the labels and log whatever portion you eat. Sometime I eat half of the suggested portion size. Sometimes I eat 3 times as much. A serving is always going to mean something totally different to different people. I don't see a way that it could ever be fully standardised.
In Australia (I don't know about the rest of the world) all labels have to have the nutrition information per serving and per 100g. Since the serving size is more or less meaningless I just read the per 100g information.
You just have to be aware and it shouldn't be a problem (understanding this should be taught at schools imo)
Yeah we're lucky here is Aus with our labelling, in the US it's pretty much all by 'serving' which is an arbitrary number set by the company (often with a goal in mind, such as making it small enough that they can round down under the labelling laws so they can say x% fat free! or Zero calorie!)
Well that'd make it near impossible and now I can imagine that frustration.0 -
Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....0 -
Spreyton22K wrote: »Just a shout out to the fellow Aussies on this thread - does the use of kilojoules in preference to calories on the packet throw you much?
....I must admit if they do use Kj instead of calories I find that a bit extra frustrating in working out amounts....
Kiwi here, and yes, this is one of my pet peeves. Having to calculate kj to kcal before working out if it's worth eating.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions