Argh! misleading nutrition labels

lemurcat12

The_Enginerd wrote: »

kshama2001 wrote: »

LaurenAOK wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

So they can advertise X grams of sugar or calories or whatever per serving. Or perhaps so they can label something 0 grams of something per serving by making the amount less than .5 g per serving (common with trans fats).

Yep, this. It's super annoying. If I was ever in some kind of political office these policies are something I would want to reform... but the majority of people don't care about that kind of thing anyway, so no one would vote for me with that platform

The White House and FDA Announce Proposed Updates to Nutrition Facts Label

... First Lady Michelle Obama joined Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg at the White House to announce proposed revisions to the Nutrition Facts label, which has been significantly updated only once since its initial release twenty years ago.

...The proposed updates are intended to reflect the latest scientific information about the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The proposed label would also replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with the amount consumers actually eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.

Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/27/white-house-and-fda-announce-proposed-updates-nutrition-facts-label

I'm for realistic serving sizes, but this part in particular I'm not in support of:

Update serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put into place in 1994. By law, serving sizes must be based on the portion consumers actually eat, rather than the amount they “should” be eating.

It would probably be in our best interest to teach people what a "proper" serving size is instead of expanding the serving size to fit our disproportionate view of what a serving is.

Yeah, that's kind of how I feel too. (And that's supposedly what the current way is.)

ASKyle

I don't really see that as misleading. If you're glancing at the nutrition label, why aren't you looking at the serving size at the top?

alltheweigh170

ASKyle wrote: »

I don't really see that as misleading. If you're glancing at the nutrition label, why aren't you looking at the serving size at the top?

I am generally careful when I am shopping and looking at labels. However, yesterday was a quick stop during lunchtime and in my hurry picked up an individual sized bottle and assumed the 150 cals with 36 g of sugar was for the whole bottle. Sometimes people forget to check every minute detail and that is what the manufacturer is counting on.

lemurcat12

Again, the manufacturer is not trying to trick you. The manufacturer is required to use certain serving sizes.

For beverages, the serving is supposed to be as close to 8 oz as possible and have an even division or something like that. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/21/101.12

ASKyle

alltheweigh170 wrote: »

ASKyle wrote: »

I don't really see that as misleading. If you're glancing at the nutrition label, why aren't you looking at the serving size at the top?

I am generally careful when I am shopping and looking at labels. However, yesterday was a quick stop during lunchtime and in my hurry picked up an individual sized bottle and assumed the 150 cals with 36 g of sugar was for the whole bottle. Sometimes people forget to check every minute detail and that is what the manufacturer is counting on.

36 grams of sugar is about 3 TABLESPOONS... wow! Six tablespoons in the whole drink!

Most of those juice drinks (odwalla, etc) are two servings per bottle, even though they look individual. The little half size odwallas are a serving.

rugratz2015

ASKyle wrote: »

I don't really see that as misleading. If you're glancing at the nutrition label, why aren't you looking at the serving size at the top?

The label may not show the serving size, or it doesn't state that the container contains 2 or more servings.

lemurcat12

All labels (in the US) must show serving size/number of servings.

rugratz2015

lemurcat12 wrote: »

All labels (in the US) must show serving size/number of servings.

Here in Ireland a lot of products still don't provide the nutritional details.

PaulaWallaDingDong

lemurcat12 wrote: »

All labels (in the US) must show serving size/number of servings.

Exactly, and if you're tracking calories, you have to read the label on EVERY FOOD YOU BUY, especially that pesky "x servings per container" line. It's not misleading. Just annoying. I'd have made some nasty comments about the OP if I hadn't fallen into that situation before.

rainbowbow

Of course you should be paying closer attention to the foods you are eating. Can't be angry when it's listed properly.

Example:

Poptarts, serving size is 1! Comes in a sleeve of 2.
Ramen, serving size is 1/2 a block.
Most Canned soups have 2 servings.
A can of Monster? 2 servings.


I could go on but you get the picture. For fruit juice in particular I most often see a serving size around 6 oz.

rainbowbow

I'd also like to mention, that I kind of prefer the serving size method that the US uses. In Europe the nutritional information is only available in weight of calories per 100grams. If you have a bag of chips that weighs 72g and you've only eaten about 1/3 of it.... well... you see what i mean.

It's impossible without a scale.

stealthq

I get most annoyed when it's a fraction of a product. Or if I find the name misleading.

1/3 of a pickle spear - really? I'd still eat the pickle even if you cop to the 3-5 calories in the whole thing. Honest.

Or 1/2 of a 'personal' pizza. If you call it 'personal' I expect it to be a single serving. 'Personal' doesn't mean for me and a friend, and it shouldn't mean for me with leftovers.