Don't forget to check your food labels!
Replies
-
From reading the website, they are trying to convince people that hazelnut chocolate spread is a normal and fine breakfast (while mainly stressing that it tastes good and kids like it). Given the numerous normal breakfasts that people eat (pastries, waffles with maple syrup, pancakes with maple syrup), they are not off-the-wall. (And I think breakfasts like this can certainly fit into a healthy diet on occasion. I am currently planning a chicken and waffles extravaganza.)
That doesn't mean that people can possibly have been confused about the nutritional value of the spread.
Again, this is made by Ferrero, the same company who also makes another hazelnut/chocolate product probably better known in the US: http://www.ferrerorocherusa.com/
I see no reason to think one is better for me than the other, and since I am not that into toast I choose to consume my chocolate and hazelnuts as candy, but I don't think anyone is dumb enough to assume that because it's marketed as a breakfast product it's vastly different in micros or macros. If they are, they -- not Ferrero -- should be ashamed of themselves.0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I still don't see your point. Nutrition content is likely comparable to toaster strudels, pop tarts, and eggos with syrup. Are people that ignorant that they don't see that these are not "healthy, wholesome snacks"? I don't know anyone who would define Nutella as a health food.
Do people really believe all the marketing they see?
Consumers should educate themselves about what they're consuming, period.0 -
DawnieB1977 wrote: »I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think the US is reasonably strict about food labels. What do you think the difference is? Our serving sizes are dictated by the gov't based on what a proper size is supposed to be. The main difference that comes to mind is amount per 100 g vs. serving, but I find that annoying and unhelpful, and no RDA for sugar, but then again there's no credible evidence for any particular RDA for sugar -- the good limits focus on added sugar.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I'm fairly sure no-one thinks spreadable chocolate is a health food. Saying that, there's an advert (commercial) here in the UK suggesting that it's a good idea to give your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast. Obviously it's Nutella's own advert!
I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think Australia is too. I really like how here we have to have the nutritional info per 100g as well as per serving, the US method of just per serving (whatever the hell the company deems a serving size to be) is very confusing.
It's not the company, it's the gov't. The idea is that people should see 56 g of pasta as a normal serving size, not 100. (And for most Americans 100 grams=X means nothing -- I didn't understand grams 'til I started weighing everything with a scale. I couldn't have told you what 100 grams or even what 4 oz of fish was, despite the fact the latter is my grown-up-with measurement. That measurement irritates me when I get UK products, because I don't care what's in 100 grams (other than for MFP), I care what's in a normal serving.) I don't think either would make much difference, but I think 56 g/2 oz is a good serving size even if most people dump in way too much because they are influenced by the amount they get a restaurants or whatever.
For the record even when I was overweight I'd tend to look at serving=1/5 of the box and do the math or try to eat roughly a serving. I was bad at it and added extra calories in other ways, but I wasn't too stupid to get that 1 box didn't = 1 serving. Any American who claims otherwise is likely lying or deluding themselves, IMO. Just as anyone who claims surprise that Nutella has lots of calories/is basically candy is doing those same thing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I'm fairly sure no-one thinks spreadable chocolate is a health food. Saying that, there's an advert (commercial) here in the UK suggesting that it's a good idea to give your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast. Obviously it's Nutella's own advert!
I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think Australia is too. I really like how here we have to have the nutritional info per 100g as well as per serving, the US method of just per serving (whatever the hell the company deems a serving size to be) is very confusing.
It's not the company, it's the gov't. The idea is that people should see 56 g of pasta as a normal serving size, not 100. I don't think either would make much difference, but I think 56 g/2 oz is a good serving size even if most people dump in way too much because they are influenced by the amount they get a restaurants or whatever.
Ah, I didn't realise where it came from. I thought the company went "ok, 36 grams is a good serving size" and gave the info for that, and another brand of the same food might have a 50 gram serving size, so comparing them required math and stuff, where by having a serving size AND a 100g measurement, comparing like for like becomes easy.
In many ways, it still does make comparing like for not-like easy, as you can pick up two products which don't have the same serving size and immediately see which one has the higher calories/more protein/lower fat etc without having to math. (ie I don't know if I want pasta bake or curry for dinner, and can immediately compare a jar of pasta sauce to a jar of curry sauce and establish which suits my needs overall by comparing the 100g info (which then also correlates immediately to percentages, which is handy)
So, if I look at, say, packets of pasta, each brand will have the same serving size?0 -
I still don't see your point. Nutrition content is likely comparable to toaster strudels, pop tarts, and eggos with syrup. Are people that ignorant that they don't see that these are not "healthy, wholesome snacks"? I don't know anyone who would define Nutella as a health food.
Do people really believe all the marketing they see?
C'mon, you've read the forums here at MFP, you know the answer to that!
Diet pills, cleanses, detoxes, MLM schemes, juice fasts....do people believe the marketing? You bet they do! Which leads to.....Consumers should educate themselves about what they're consuming, period.
Agree 100%. But most consumers are woefully ignorant about even the most basic facts and principles of nutrition. Woefully ignorant.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I'm fairly sure no-one thinks spreadable chocolate is a health food. Saying that, there's an advert (commercial) here in the UK suggesting that it's a good idea to give your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast. Obviously it's Nutella's own advert!
I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think Australia is too. I really like how here we have to have the nutritional info per 100g as well as per serving, the US method of just per serving (whatever the hell the company deems a serving size to be) is very confusing.
It's not the company, it's the gov't. The idea is that people should see 56 g of pasta as a normal serving size, not 100. I don't think either would make much difference, but I think 56 g/2 oz is a good serving size even if most people dump in way too much because they are influenced by the amount they get a restaurants or whatever.
Ah, I didn't realise where it came from. I thought the company went "ok, 36 grams is a good serving size" and gave the info for that, and another brand of the same food might have a 50 gram serving size, so comparing them required math and stuff, where by having a serving size AND a 100g measurement, comparing like for like becomes easy.
In many ways, it still does make comparing like for not-like easy, as you can pick up two products which don't have the same serving size and immediately see which one has the higher calories/more protein/lower fat etc without having to math. (ie I don't know if I want pasta bake or curry for dinner, and can immediately compare a jar of pasta sauce to a jar of curry sauce and establish which suits my needs overall by comparing the 100g info (which then also correlates immediately to percentages, which is handy)
So, if I look at, say, packets of pasta, each brand will have the same serving size?
Typically, yeah. All 2 oz of dry pasta.0 -
To add to this, manufacturers are going to have to start putting realistic serving sizes on packaging that is clearly meant to be one serving in the US. No more of that 1.875 serving stuff.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I'm fairly sure no-one thinks spreadable chocolate is a health food. Saying that, there's an advert (commercial) here in the UK suggesting that it's a good idea to give your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast. Obviously it's Nutella's own advert!
I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think Australia is too. I really like how here we have to have the nutritional info per 100g as well as per serving, the US method of just per serving (whatever the hell the company deems a serving size to be) is very confusing.
It's not the company, it's the gov't. The idea is that people should see 56 g of pasta as a normal serving size, not 100. I don't think either would make much difference, but I think 56 g/2 oz is a good serving size even if most people dump in way too much because they are influenced by the amount they get a restaurants or whatever.
Ah, I didn't realise where it came from. I thought the company went "ok, 36 grams is a good serving size" and gave the info for that, and another brand of the same food might have a 50 gram serving size, so comparing them required math and stuff, where by having a serving size AND a 100g measurement, comparing like for like becomes easy.
In many ways, it still does make comparing like for not-like easy, as you can pick up two products which don't have the same serving size and immediately see which one has the higher calories/more protein/lower fat etc without having to math. (ie I don't know if I want pasta bake or curry for dinner, and can immediately compare a jar of pasta sauce to a jar of curry sauce and establish which suits my needs overall by comparing the 100g info (which then also correlates immediately to percentages, which is handy)
So, if I look at, say, packets of pasta, each brand will have the same serving size?
Typically, yeah. All 2 oz of dry pasta.
Ah ok, that seems a little more logical then. I do still like the 100g for easy comparison and for no thinking macro percentages0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I'm fairly sure no-one thinks spreadable chocolate is a health food. Saying that, there's an advert (commercial) here in the UK suggesting that it's a good idea to give your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast. Obviously it's Nutella's own advert!
I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think Australia is too. I really like how here we have to have the nutritional info per 100g as well as per serving, the US method of just per serving (whatever the hell the company deems a serving size to be) is very confusing.
It's not the company, it's the gov't. The idea is that people should see 56 g of pasta as a normal serving size, not 100. (And for most Americans 100 grams=X means nothing -- I didn't understand grams 'til I started weighing everything with a scale. I couldn't have told you what 100 grams or even what 4 oz of fish was, despite the fact the latter is my grown-up-with measurement. That measurement irritates me when I get UK products, because I don't care what's in 100 grams (other than for MFP), I care what's in a normal serving.) I don't think either would make much difference, but I think 56 g/2 oz is a good serving size even if most people dump in way too much because they are influenced by the amount they get a restaurants or whatever.
For the record even when I was overweight I'd tend to look at serving=1/5 of the box and do the math or try to eat roughly a serving. I was bad at it and added extra calories in other ways, but I wasn't too stupid to get that 1 box didn't = 1 serving. Any American who claims otherwise is likely lying or deluding themselves, IMO. Just as anyone who claims surprise that Nutella has lots of calories/is basically candy is doing those same thing.
But... I eat 100 g of pasta as a serving.0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
Well there's nothing untrue about what they're claiming.0 -
Now I want Nutella.
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
It is basically candy, but it is delicious. I don't know why anyone would think it is being marketed as healthy. As a small treat, all things in moderation and fit it in to your calories.
It is not a nut butter.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »DawnieB1977 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
I'm fairly sure no-one thinks spreadable chocolate is a health food. Saying that, there's an advert (commercial) here in the UK suggesting that it's a good idea to give your kids Nutella on toast for breakfast. Obviously it's Nutella's own advert!
I've always read food labels. I think the UK is stricter about food labels than the US is.
I think Australia is too. I really like how here we have to have the nutritional info per 100g as well as per serving, the US method of just per serving (whatever the hell the company deems a serving size to be) is very confusing.
It's not the company, it's the gov't. The idea is that people should see 56 g of pasta as a normal serving size, not 100. (And for most Americans 100 grams=X means nothing -- I didn't understand grams 'til I started weighing everything with a scale. I couldn't have told you what 100 grams or even what 4 oz of fish was, despite the fact the latter is my grown-up-with measurement. That measurement irritates me when I get UK products, because I don't care what's in 100 grams (other than for MFP), I care what's in a normal serving.) I don't think either would make much difference, but I think 56 g/2 oz is a good serving size even if most people dump in way too much because they are influenced by the amount they get a restaurants or whatever.
For the record even when I was overweight I'd tend to look at serving=1/5 of the box and do the math or try to eat roughly a serving. I was bad at it and added extra calories in other ways, but I wasn't too stupid to get that 1 box didn't = 1 serving. Any American who claims otherwise is likely lying or deluding themselves, IMO. Just as anyone who claims surprise that Nutella has lots of calories/is basically candy is doing those same thing.
But... I eat 100 g of pasta as a serving.
Yeah, but you probably have a higher calorie limit than most people.
I don't think the defined serving size is something that people need to pay attention to if they are using other methods to control their diet especially, I just hate the idea that the serving sizes in the US are meant to be tricky vs. something like "per 100 grams" when the reality is they are meant to be helpful in educating people about what a typical serving is (based on a 2000 calorie diet or some such, eaten in the context of an overall meal). You can say that's a dumb strategy, but it's not why people are fat.0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Strawblackcat wrote: »I don't have a problem with Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting. What I have a problem with is Nutella being the nutritional equivalent to chocolate frosting and it being marketed like it's some kind of healthy, wholesome snack.
Does anyone actually think Nutella is some sort of health food? All the word of mouth I get (haven't seen marketing here) is that it's some kind of delicious dessert spread. Plus, it's made by Ferrero.
Well there's nothing untrue about what they're claiming.
Yep. Honestly my kid chooses nutella over jelly or syrup and I don't even care!
0 -
OfficialDSXIII wrote: »My girlfriend has corn allergies and I bought some maple syrup that said no high fructose corn syrup on the front label thinking it was ok. Good thing I checked again before I gave her any because the first ingredient on the back label was corn syrup. X_X
My fault for not checking thoroughly at the store, but seriously, it was super misleading!
@OfficialDSXIII - Real maple syrup has one ingredient: maple syrup. Anything that has HFCS, sugars or other ingredients isn't the real deal.0 -
Never buy packaged foods unless you're gonna do a cheat, it's all crap! But I had to lol when they said no one would eat a bowl of chips.. they've clearly never been fat!
What I have issues with are food companies manipulating serving sizes so that they can add certain labels to their food (like a muffin having 1.2g of trans fat and a company putting the serving size as "1/3 muffin" so that the trans fat per serving is 0.4g, can be rounded down to zero, and advertised as "0g trans fat -per serving in super tiny fine print-").
This is mine. Less for the trans fat issue, but more because no one is eating a third of a muffin, guys. Especially when it's one item that you'd have to cut into thirds yourself. Every time I point these obviously-single-serving items out to my boyfriend (usually baked goods at the grocery store where our writer's group meets), we have a collective wince/laugh about it.0 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »
*sigh*
Of course not. Obviously the solution is to buy from the bulk bins so the food doesn't come in a box. Duh. [/sarcasm]
Actually, it isn't a bad idea to do that if you are careful about storing those goods in airtight containers, preferably in a freezer to kill any bugs. It is usually much cheaper for the same product.0 -
mean_and_lean wrote: »OfficialDSXIII wrote: »My girlfriend has corn allergies and I bought some maple syrup that said no high fructose corn syrup on the front label thinking it was ok. Good thing I checked again before I gave her any because the first ingredient on the back label was corn syrup. X_X
My fault for not checking thoroughly at the store, but seriously, it was super misleading!
@OfficialDSXIII - Real maple syrup has one ingredient: maple syrup. Anything that has HFCS, sugars or other ingredients isn't the real deal.
Yep. And IMO, that's a taste issue. It can't have been labeled "maple syrup" but "maple-flavored syrup" or some such. Was also likely cheaper. I've never found it difficult to recognize the real maple syrups from the others (many people buy the others because they make low cal and no sugar versions -- my parents do these days).0 -
Never buy packaged foods unless you're gonna do a cheat, it's all crap! But I had to lol when they said no one would eat a bowl of chips.. they've clearly never been fat!
What I have issues with are food companies manipulating serving sizes so that they can add certain labels to their food (like a muffin having 1.2g of trans fat and a company putting the serving size as "1/3 muffin" so that the trans fat per serving is 0.4g, can be rounded down to zero, and advertised as "0g trans fat -per serving in super tiny fine print-").
This is mine. Less for the trans fat issue, but more because no one is eating a third of a muffin, guys. Especially when it's one item that you'd have to cut into thirds yourself. Every time I point these obviously-single-serving items out to my boyfriend (usually baked goods at the grocery store where our writer's group meets), we have a collective wince/laugh about it.
But again, in the US this is likely because the gov't defines what a serving size of muffin is. Companies that make giant packaged muffins have to call them 2 or 3 servings, depending on the size. The "3 servings" is supposed to tell people that they shouldn't eat the whole muffin. While one can disagree with the strategy (I am neutral on it), it's not intended to trick people.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Never buy packaged foods unless you're gonna do a cheat, it's all crap! But I had to lol when they said no one would eat a bowl of chips.. they've clearly never been fat!
What I have issues with are food companies manipulating serving sizes so that they can add certain labels to their food (like a muffin having 1.2g of trans fat and a company putting the serving size as "1/3 muffin" so that the trans fat per serving is 0.4g, can be rounded down to zero, and advertised as "0g trans fat -per serving in super tiny fine print-").
This is mine. Less for the trans fat issue, but more because no one is eating a third of a muffin, guys. Especially when it's one item that you'd have to cut into thirds yourself. Every time I point these obviously-single-serving items out to my boyfriend (usually baked goods at the grocery store where our writer's group meets), we have a collective wince/laugh about it.
But again, in the US this is likely because the gov't defines what a serving size of muffin is. Companies that make giant packaged muffins have to call them 2 or 3 servings, depending on the size. The "3 servings" is supposed to tell people that they shouldn't eat the whole muffin. While one can disagree with the strategy (I am neutral on it), it's not intended to trick people.
^^ I agree.
Plus I think people demand big portions, or some will think/say "is that all I get fro X # of $.
I am over 60, and the biggest surprise to me since being on MFP and reading labels is portion sizes. It was definitely an eye opener. The old saying "buyer beware" can apply to serving size and serving size is mandated on labels, so OP is right, "check labels".
0 -
OfficialDSXIII wrote: »My girlfriend has corn allergies and I bought some maple syrup that said no high fructose corn syrup on the front label thinking it was ok. Good thing I checked again before I gave her any because the first ingredient on the back label was corn syrup. X_X
My fault for not checking thoroughly at the store, but seriously, it was super misleading!
I notice a lot of people getting this one confused. It seems many don't realize that there's more than one type of corn syrup out there.
HFCS <> corn syrup0 -
That is true, but unfortunately people like that do exist...I guess not everyone cares much about what exactly they're buying and eating. I also know from personal experience a lot of people claim they are too busy to check everything, so they just go with the "healthy advertised" option, and think they are eating well balanced meals because label says so.WinoGelato wrote: »I think that if a person makes their consumer buying decisions based on an ad campaign or a little marketing phrase like "healthy" or "clean" or "free range" that says more about the person than it does the company selling the product...
I do agree with that, some of the suggested serving sizes are ridiculous, and to people that are not educated/interested it seems like a great option.What I have issues with are food companies manipulating serving sizes so that they can add certain labels to their food (like a muffin having 1.2g of trans fat and a company putting the serving size as "1/3 muffin" so that the trans fat per serving is 0.4g, can be rounded down to zero, and advertised as "0g trans fat -per serving in super tiny fine print-").
While it's not likely to make a real impact on anyone's nutrition, I do still roll my eyes hard when I see the 1/3 of a pickle serving on Vlasic whole kosher pickles. Stupid.0 -
I think many posters here are vastly overestimating the discernment and frankly the education of consumers - I doubt many people read labels, and get ALL their nutrition advice from media. Just watch other people as you do your grocery shopping - are they reading labels? Not many that I have seen if any at all! These are the same folks who will swear by the latest fad diet trend, or quote the Kardashians as a source of reliable info. Consumers generally CAN be fooled by advertising, you just have to be very vigilant - e.g. companies change the size of their packaging but charge the same price. I look at grocery shopping as a game - do I win or does the marketing department win?! (mostly its me!)0
-
If you are interested in the sugar industry and the influence of the International Sugar Association on the food industry, I recommend you watch this:
http://tvo.org/video/documentaries/sugar-coated
Prepare to be amazed.0 -
cross2bear wrote: »I think many posters here are vastly overestimating the discernment and frankly the education of consumers - I doubt many people read labels, and get ALL their nutrition advice from media.
But that's a choice. People who are buying lots of chips and BigMacs and DingDongs or whatever are not going to say they are doing it because they don't realize they have high calories or because they think they are especially healthy (and the same goes for some cereal that might as well be a dessert food and so on). Not if they are honest. They do it because they think they taste good and are making a decision not to care about the calories/nutrition information (that is, if they don't ever read the labels).
Also, I always read labels, but you wouldn't know it if you watched me shop, because I rarely buy something I've never bought before.
In this day and age, if someone is uneducated about the products they buy or makes choices based on marketing, that person has only his or herself to blame.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cross2bear wrote: »I think many posters here are vastly overestimating the discernment and frankly the education of consumers - I doubt many people read labels, and get ALL their nutrition advice from media.
But that's a choice. People who are buying lots of chips and BigMacs and DingDongs or whatever are not going to say they are doing it because they don't realize they have high calories or because they think they are especially healthy (and the same goes for some cereal that might as well be a dessert food and so on). Not if they are honest. They do it because they think they taste good and are making a decision not to care about the calories/nutrition information (that is, if they don't ever read the labels).
Also, I always read labels, but you wouldn't know it if you watched me shop, because I rarely buy something I've never bought before.
In this day and age, if someone is uneducated about the products they buy or makes choices based on marketing, that person has only his or herself to blame.
Agree with this. We a consumers. Companies make goods to sell them to us consumers. It is a business! We have the choice to educate ourselves, or to walk around with blinders on.0 -
Also, I always read labels, but you wouldn't know it if you watched me shop, because I rarely buy something I've never bought before.
Same here. I buy the same brands so I know what's in the food therefore I don't need to read the label to see what I'm getting. The only time I am forced to label read is if my store discontinues a brand which it's done in the past.0 -
Most packaged foods here in the UK have a 'traffic light' system of nutrition per serving on the front. This typically shows nutrients in weight, their recommended daily intake % and a colour coding from green, Amber to red to indicate that RI % per serving
Some foods have labels like that here too but they only show what they want to show, lol. So it's super misleading.
This looks tasty, by the way.0
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
- 427 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