Annoyance: Deceptive Serving Sizes
Replies
-
http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/eating-nutrition/label-etiquetage/understanding-comprendre/serving-portion-eng.php
As a Canadian this is how ours are determined which makes sense.
"Serving size is listed in a common household measure. It also is listed in grams or millilitres depending on the type of food."
It has nothing to do with how much is in the package...
"Serving size is not necessarily the suggested quantity of food you should eat. The serving size tells you the quantity of food used to calculate the numbers in the nutrition facts table."
It is based on the calorie/nutritional information.
once you get that...they make more sense.0 -
I know this isn't the point of the thread, but here goes.
My husband has always only eaten one poptart at a time. I opened a foil pack and ate both in front of him and he gave me a weird look and asked why I would eat both of them.
So yes, there are people out there who only eat one poptart. Probably part of the reason why he's always been a normal weight and I've always been overweight.0 -
It makes me glad that companies always list the serving size in grams0
-
The Poptarts is a good example of deceptive serving size. How about canned soup? It's always a "1 Cup" serving or 240 mL. Total servings is "about 2", though the can contains 530 mL, or 2.21 servings. Even the MFP confirmed entries of "entire can" only show 2 which is actually 10% low.
And I have advanced degrees in math and science and can't quite figure out how to measure microwave popped popcorn. Kind of an exaggeration, but it's truly confusing.0 -
This. Grr.The Poptarts is a good example of deceptive serving size. How about canned soup? It's always a "1 Cup" serving or 240 mL. Total servings is "about 2", though the can contains 530 mL, or 2.21 servings. Even the MFP confirmed entries of "entire can" only show 2 which is actually 10% low.
Actually, I was stuck with even more of a conundrum. I eat the entire can of Campbell's Chunky Healthy Request soup. The can is labeled with a net weight of 18.8 oz (not fl oz, oz)/533 grams. The nutritional information has a serving of 1 cup/240 ml and says that it has "about 2" servings. One is in weight and the other is in volume.
Since the soup is way more dense than water, I can't just assume that 1g is about 1ml like I could with a really watery soup.
I ended up cleaning out the can and filling it with water so that I could see how many grams of water the can held so that I could figure out the can's actual volume. The whole can has 2.08 servings in it.
"About 2 servings" needs to go away. I've had things that had 2.4 servings and 1.8 servings and everywhere in between in the package.0 -
amazing how the pop tart is the first thing that "popped" in my mind when I read the title of this!
I guess the bottom line - yes they should be more honest or more regulated, but the truth is that the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!0 -
How can they be "more honest" than the Pop Tart nutrition label I posted earlier?GauchoMark wrote: »amazing how the pop tart is the first thing that "popped" in my mind when I read the title of this!
I guess the bottom line - yes they should be more honest or more regulated, but the truth is that the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Requiring that wrapped items be wrapped by stated serving size would reduce confusion. Not everyone is going to read the nutrition label. If an item is "not labeled for retail sale" then it doesn't have the nutrition label even on it.
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
they are on the package…how much more "honest" do you want them to be…
I am sorry if OP did not correctly read the package, but no amount of regulation is going to solve that.
If something is packaged in pairs, it's quite reasonable to assume that a serving size is a pair. If the serving size isn't a pair then it needs to be packaged individually. If the serving size is a pair, then the company needs to own up to that and put that higher-calorie amount in the nutritional information.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
How can they be "more honest" than the Pop Tart nutrition label I posted earlier?GauchoMark wrote: »amazing how the pop tart is the first thing that "popped" in my mind when I read the title of this!
I guess the bottom line - yes they should be more honest or more regulated, but the truth is that the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!
you missed the point of my post...
We get it. The pop tart label has the size listed clearly. You win! It just doesn't make sense to break it up that way.0 -
What does that have to do with being honest? Are you suggesting more regulation so as to dictate the grouping patterns of Pop Tarts? Is it dishonest not to individually wrap Pop Tarts? What was the point of your post?GauchoMark wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
How can they be "more honest" than the Pop Tart nutrition label I posted earlier?GauchoMark wrote: »amazing how the pop tart is the first thing that "popped" in my mind when I read the title of this!
I guess the bottom line - yes they should be more honest or more regulated, but the truth is that the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!
you missed the point of my post...
We get it. The pop tart label has the size listed clearly. You win! It just doesn't make sense to break it up that way.-1 -
Jennloella wrote: »Is it deceptive if it's written? And Ew to poptarts and ramen. Meat and fresh veggies don't have that problem!
This is my attitude pretty much. One has to be pretty deluded to think that Pop-Tarts, ramen noodles or Nutella were healthy to begin with.
Yes, labels should be clear and IMO they mostly are already. No, they don't need to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of lazy semi-literates. The people screaming the loudest about dishonest labeling tend to be the people who never bothered to read the label at all until they started trying to lose weight. Increasing the proportion of one syllable words isn't going to change that.
0 -
Jennloella wrote: »Is it deceptive if it's written? And Ew to poptarts and ramen. Meat and fresh veggies don't have that problem!
This is my attitude pretty much. One has to be pretty deluded to think that Pop-Tarts, ramen noodles or Nutella were healthy to begin with.
Yes, labels should be clear and IMO they mostly are already. No, they don't need to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of lazy semi-literates. The people screaming the loudest about dishonest labeling tend to be the people who never bothered to read the label at all until they started trying to lose weight. Increasing the proportion of one syllable words isn't going to change that.
Hmm... lost so much weight eating ramen and nutella. Added some veggies and chicken to the ramen - it clocked in under 500 cals, which was more than enough to fill me up for dinner. Cost me about $1 and 10 minutes to make.0 -
Spreyton22K wrote: »Yes, certainly reading is fundamental
I would find it easier though if there was one standard of counting/labeling for portion sizes, also here we have the 'traffic light' measurement too on some packaging and for me that just confuses me all the more.
First World problem....I suppose,
....but I am surprised by how difficult manufacturer's seem to be determined to make it. You have to be pretty motivated to unravel the numbers, the small print and any confusion about what the is actually a serving size.
Nailed it; if you do, you will - if you don't, you won't... everybody wins.0 -
Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible. The easier it is to lose weight, the better.
Not everyone can do math, or even read. That's not a moral failing.0 -
I do and then put the second one in a zip lock bag.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.0 -
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
0 -
Jennloella wrote: »Is it deceptive if it's written? And Ew to poptarts and ramen. Meat and fresh veggies don't have that problem!
This is my attitude pretty much. One has to be pretty deluded to think that Pop-Tarts, ramen noodles or Nutella were healthy to begin with.
Yes, labels should be clear and IMO they mostly are already. No, they don't need to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of lazy semi-literates. The people screaming the loudest about dishonest labeling tend to be the people who never bothered to read the label at all until they started trying to lose weight. Increasing the proportion of one syllable words isn't going to change that.
I don't think anyone would describe a Pop Tart as healthy. However, for those who do want to eat the healthy or unhealthy or whatever food they've always liked and lose weight, which is totally possible, it is helpful for them to have clear and correct and not misleading information or packaging.
The bolded comment speaks to an ignorance far deeper than the kind you complain about.0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »My only complaint is why can't I just eat a whole jar of peanut butter?
That would be to much common sense. 0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »My only complaint is why can't I just eat a whole jar of peanut butter?
I know... it's *one* package... it should be *one* serving... it's so confusing... 0 -
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.0 -
If something is packaged in pairs, it's quite reasonable to assume that a serving size is a pair. If the serving size isn't a pair then it needs to be packaged individually. If the serving size is a pair, then the company needs to own up to that and put that higher-calorie amount in the nutritional information.
This: there should be calorie information for a suggested serving size, calorie information for the package as wrapped, and for that matter, calorie information for the complete container, or an exact statement as to how many suggested portions the container contains.
0 -
-
I have a 4-slice toaster...ergo one serving of pop tarts should clearly be 4 pastries.0
-
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
0 -
For you peanut butter people:
And it's actually labeled so that one tub is one serving. Yay! That's how you do it.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
But you didn't answer my questions.
When I was young and trying to lose weight, I only looked at the calories when I was shopping. Since I was counting calories, that was all that mattered. I didn't even consider that a serving size might not be the amount that I considered a serving size.DeguelloTex wrote: »
Doesn't your conclusion beg the question of whether the obese typically use them in the first place? And that the obese are failing to understand them?Nutrition labeling on food DOES need to be as simple and straightforward as possible if we, as a society, want to complain about the obesity rate.
Good luck coming up with nutritional labels for people who can't read, though.
People who are counting carbs may just look at carbs while they are shopping and then never look at the label again when they are home.
I think a lot of people use the Nutritional Information but not as completely as they should. Also, very few people use a food scale. Shoot, some people say that using a food scale and carefully paying attention to what you eating is actually disorderly eating.
As for labels for people who can't read, someone above mentioned that their country used green, amber, and red to show the healthfulness of nutrients. I can totally see the US heading in that direction.
Protein powder: green, amber, or red?
Ice cream: green, amber or red?
If we're going to die on the hill of making everything obvious to the lowest common denominator, what about color-blind people who can't read?
Nice of you to refer to human beings as "the lowest common denominator" and then bring up people with a disability. Holy crap.
But to answer your trolly question, YES nutritional information should be as accessible as possible, to as many people as possible.0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
What does that have to do with being honest? Are you suggesting more regulation so as to dictate the grouping patterns of Pop Tarts? Is it dishonest not to individually wrap Pop Tarts? What was the point of your post?GauchoMark wrote: »DeguelloTex wrote: »
How can they be "more honest" than the Pop Tart nutrition label I posted earlier?GauchoMark wrote: »amazing how the pop tart is the first thing that "popped" in my mind when I read the title of this!
I guess the bottom line - yes they should be more honest or more regulated, but the truth is that the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!
you missed the point of my post...
We get it. The pop tart label has the size listed clearly. You win! It just doesn't make sense to break it up that way.
the point was in the first post of mine that you argued
"the only person you can trust is yourself and a kitchen scale!"
In other words, don't just blindly accept the number on the package, read it, measure it, and use your brain to log it correctly. The pop tart thing is just annoying, which was why this thread was started!
See, even when things are written down, even YOU can miss the point!0 -
I was looking at different ice cream bars the other day, Figuring it was better portion control for me than buying a pint or half gallon of ice cream....The ice cream bar was 2 servings, how do you eat half an ice cream bar?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