Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Is this a bit scary and confusing, or have I simply not thought it through?
Replies
-
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »From the MFP blog on updated nutrition labels ...
"On the new label, serving sizes will increase to reflect today’s larger portion sizes –– because, by law, serving sizes must be based on what people are actually consuming, not what they should be consuming."
All this means is that companies aren't going to be able to "misrepresent" on their labels. For example, a 20 oz coke states calories per serving @ 110 and a total of 2.5 servings...who's going to grab that coke and measure out 2.5 servings really? If you grab a 20 oz coke it's highly likely you're going to drink that whole thing...thus the proposed label would read a serving size of 20 oz with calories at 275 to more accurately reflect what is likely to be consumed.
Nothing scary about this at all...it's a good thing, particularly for people who don't pay a whole lot of attention to nutritional labels...which would be the majority of people I think.7 -
Sure! There are lots of people who just quickly glance at the label for calories and don't read anything else.0
-
Serving size is supposed to reflect a 2,000 cal. a day plan. I just measure out what I want and keep it under my calorie limit for my day. I'm too busy to make a science out of this.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The question, though, is what is a realistic portion size. I think US pasta sizes (2 oz) is realistic even if people often eat a lot more, for example.
For me a 2oz dry serving of pasta is for two people, not for one, regardless of what is written in the package. Add lots of vegetables and you have enough food without going over the carbs.
But I agree with some of the comments saying that some people may interpret the new labeling as being "allowed" to eat more. Basically if people didn't read labels before, they are not going to read them today or tomorrow even if the wording changes.
I live with one of those people...:
0 -
In Australia, we have two sets of data on our labels - kj (cal) per serving AND kj (cal) per 100 grams. This means that when you're at home and have your food scales out, it's simple to check that you're eating a 'serving' worth. It also means you can compare like foods at the supermarket very easily and quickly. But if you're out on the go, you can estimate using the serving size instead.2
-
I hope I like this change, I admit when I first started losing weight in America I tried to eat 'one serving' of everything, according to the package. Absolute disaster. And it DID affect me at first. I thought, if this is what normal people are eating to maintain a healthy weight, then I'm seriously effed.
I usually need anywhere between a little and a LOT more than one 'serving' size, and it involves doing an annoying amount of mathematics when you're combining multiple ingredients. MFP makes that easier for sure, but doing stuff on the fly and trying to use the nutrition label is annoying. If the label reflected closer to what we actually eat, it could make it easier. Emphasis on 'could' lol as I haven't seen the changes yet - it could be even worse on the other side lol. E.g. "Calories per gallon container of ice cream - 4320. Good luck fatty!"
And I did find it almost impossible to calculate calories when I lived in England where everything was in grams and I didn't have a scale, so I had to guess a LOT. I remember trying to bake and I was like, "okay, the whole package is 1kg, the recipe calls for 200g, so that's one fifth of the package, and about here is half, so about there is a quarter of it, and a fifth is less than that..." it was a nightmare lol.
That said, I still lost weight close to expected (1lb per week) so my estimates must have been okay. It does suck doing long division just to come out with a rough guess but I didn't/wouldn't use it as an excuse not to lose weight.0 -
i'd consider this completely irrelevant considering the info per 100g is available. Simply eat the portion you want and use the per 100g information. For people who count calories changing the serving size changes nothing.
For people who aren't counting calories, i see If anything this will just be helpful. to all those ignorant people who think they're being healthy by getting a muffin (with 4 servings), or a bottle of juice (with three servings) atleast the caloric damage is more easily viewable.2 -
I think it's great. I don't think it's encouraging people to eat more, but being more transparent about how many calories are truly in something for people who aren't very savvy at reading nutrition labels. I think it could be an eye opener for many people.
This one got me a couple of months ago:
I quickly grabbed this mini pizza from the freezer section and didn't think too hard about it- a small personal pizza, 380 calories? Sure. I got home and looked closer at the small print. "Per 1/2 pizza". 760 calories- likely more (I didn't have a food scale then). Those personal pizzas are not very big, if you've ever had them. If I sit there and think about it, the caloric value makes sense, but that packaging is just designed to fool you. I read labels all the time and I was duped. Those little pizzas are pretty much made to be consumed in one sitting, and I'd argue with anyone who says they're not.1 -
I'm usually just a lurker but I read about the FDA's new guidelines (which won't be fully implemented for a couple years, btw) a while ago and found them to make sense, so I thought I'd share this info. In addition to the earlier quote, the guidelines also state:
"The new rules also change how manufacturers label foods in multi-serving packages that could be consumed in either one sitting or in multiple sittings, which FDA defines as containing 200- 300 percent of the RACC. These foods will be required to use a dual-column nutrition facts panel that provides both 'per serving' and 'per package' calorie and nutrition information. For example, a pint of ice cream that currently lists nutrition information per serving will be required use the dual-column nutrition facts panel and list nutrition information per serving and for the entire pint of ice cream. Certain exceptions apply to this part of the new rules (e.g., products requiring further preparation)."
The dual-column labels will look like this:
I hope this clears up any confusion.
(If you'll notice, there's also now an entry for 'added sugars'. I hope MFP adds this as a tracking option. I hate having natural sugars from fruit, etc., lumped in with the crap that's added to processed food for little or no good reason.)
3 -
I think that's great. Just having 2 columns makes you aware that there is more than 1 serving if they are different.
I have been fooled by things like those small containers of soup that you'd think are 1 serving but they are usually 2 or even 2.5. Does anyone really eat just half of one of those?0 -
rainbowbow wrote: »i'd consider this completely irrelevant considering the info per 100g is available. Simply eat the portion you want and use the per 100g information. For people who count calories changing the serving size changes nothing.
For people who aren't counting calories, i see If anything this will just be helpful. to all those ignorant people who think they're being healthy by getting a muffin (with 4 servings), or a bottle of juice (with three servings) atleast the caloric damage is more easily viewable.
The US does not have, and is not going to have, a per 100 g column. We can't quickly compare the calorie density between two items. We have arbitrary serving sizes on many items that can vary between manufacturers. The new rules should help clarify some of that but I don't doubt that the manufacturers will try to wiggle out of whatever they can.0 -
The worst offender, is pickle spears! Whom only consumes 3/4th's, of a pickle spear? At least that'll become (I assume & hope) an entire spear, per serving & I dislike those packages, that have half servings; so you must buy 2 packages (if you desire, full serving amounts)!0
-
katharmonic wrote: »I think that's great. Just having 2 columns makes you aware that there is more than 1 serving if they are different.
I have been fooled by things like those small containers of soup that you'd think are 1 serving but they are usually 2 or even 2.5. Does anyone really eat just half of one of those?
I'd be happy if Kellogg's would package Pop-Tarts as singles. The guilt of leaving one to go stale in the foil wrapper...3 -
I think it is kind of a moot point for a lot of people.
Pre-MFP, I never read labels, and I think there are a lot of people that don't read labels.
I know that I was a little shocked at serving sizes when I first started MFP and began reading labels before I would even purchase the food. There are serving sizes on the current labels, and it wasn't difficult to figure out a serving size per container. The new system will just make it easier for those of us who do read labels.katharmonic wrote: »I think that's great. Just having 2 columns makes you aware that there is more than 1 serving if they are different.
I have been fooled by things like those small containers of soup that you'd think are 1 serving but they are usually 2 or even 2.5. Does anyone really eat just half of one of those?
^^I don't, but then I only purchase Progresso Light Beef pot roast soup. I always eat the whole can which is "about" 2 servings. One of the few processed foods I eat.
0 -
katharmonic wrote: »I think that's great. Just having 2 columns makes you aware that there is more than 1 serving if they are different.
I have been fooled by things like those small containers of soup that you'd think are 1 serving but they are usually 2 or even 2.5. Does anyone really eat just half of one of those?
I'd be happy if Kellogg's would package Pop-Tarts as singles. The guilt of leaving one to go stale in the foil wrapper...
I agree but use Glad wrap or a Ziploc bag for it!1 -
I'm not a big fan of government regulations, but I like this one. I'm a big label reader but if I'm in a hurry to grab something at the store and get home, I think listing the calories for half a pizza as in the photo above is manipulative and deceptive; they're deliberately trying to get calorie counters who wouldn't buy their product if it were labeled 760 calories by listing the calories in half a personal pizza. Who eats half a personal pizza?1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »The question, though, is what is a realistic portion size. I think US pasta sizes (2 oz) is realistic even if people often eat a lot more, for example.
Understand 2 Oz is realistic but if the new typical or normal is considerably more that is probably how it should be labeled0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.2 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »The question, though, is what is a realistic portion size. I think US pasta sizes (2 oz) is realistic even if people often eat a lot more, for example.
Understand 2 Oz is realistic but if the new typical or normal is considerably more that is probably how it should be labeled
See, that's what I'm most concerned by with the new serving sizes. I think encouraging reasonable portions is good, not just reflecting how much people overeat and altering the calories listed per serving based on that.
The personal pizza is a good example of a serving size v. entire item that ought to be changed, just like Pop Tarts and ramen noodles. But making a serving size of pasta 3 or 4 ounces just because that's the amount they perceive to be the "normal" amount served seems like a slippery slope. Yes, the calorie counts will be significantly higher, but considering it is pretty clear that people either don't care about their calorie intake or are otherwise ignorant about weight things, I think this could be detrimental in some instances.0 -
I certainly still consume more than "1 serving" of a great many foods. Like pasta... Anything less than 3 oz and I'm going to wind up looking for more food fairly quickly (when though I eat high fiber pasta, generally with some protein!)
I am not a nibbler. I eat 2-3 decently filling meals a day. It works for me.0 -
I rarely pay attention to portion sizes...I just measure and eat.0
-
rainbowbow wrote: »i'd consider this completely irrelevant considering the info per 100g is available. Simply eat the portion you want and use the per 100g information. For people who count calories changing the serving size changes nothing.
For people who aren't counting calories, i see If anything this will just be helpful. to all those ignorant people who think they're being healthy by getting a muffin (with 4 servings), or a bottle of juice (with three servings) atleast the caloric damage is more easily viewable.
The US does not have, and is not going to have, a per 100 g column. We can't quickly compare the calorie density between two items. We have arbitrary serving sizes on many items that can vary between manufacturers. The new rules should help clarify some of that but I don't doubt that the manufacturers will try to wiggle out of whatever they can.
And yet every thing I've ever seen in the us has a serving size and calories per x weight. Which can easily be used for weighing and measuring.
Serving size: 1/2 cup (50g)
This is more than enough information for someone who tracks so I think it's irrelevant to those of us who do.
For others who don't maybe having more information is helpful.
1 -
Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.0 -
Packerjohn wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
It might be nice supplemental information on the label but personally I would be shocked if 5% of US households have a scale that measure grams.
For most calories in the container or part of the container is more useful information
You don't need a scale for per 100 g to be useful information.
For instance:
1. Does Brand A or Brand B have more calories? With a per 100 g column, you can see that at a glance even if Brand A lists a serving size as 75 grams and Brand B lists a serving size of 60 grams. Having a per 100 g lets you directly compare.
2. Pam cooking spray has "for fat-free cooking" right on the can when almost all, if not all, of the calories in Pam are from fat. They can do that because they have an unrealistic serving size of 0.25 grams and that rounds down to zero in all of the nutrition columns. If they were required to have a per 100 g column, they couldn't get away with the fat-free claim.
I agree that calories in the container will be very useful but I'd like to have per 100 g as well. I'd have the whole back panel covered in nutritional information if I could.
You don't need a food scale for "per 100g" info to be useful, no. It's an interesting bit of info. But, you do need a food scale if per 100g is the ONLY information available. If I don't have a food scale in front of me, especially if I'm not used to weighing my food (personally, I've been weighing and measuring for over 4 years now, so I've gotten pretty good at eyeballing in a pinch, but I realize this makes me an outlier in the US, not the norm), it's FAR more useful for me to know how many calories are in "15 pretzels (28g)" than how many calories are in "100g of pretzels," since I have absolutely no clue how to identify 100g of pretzels without a scale. Even if the 15 pretzels I counted out actually weighed 22g or 35g, at least I'm in the ballpark.
Just wanted to say that now i'm in europe where there is no serving size just per 100g (SOMETIMES per package). It's actually not that bad unless it's a huge container of something.
for example, a package is 250 grams, i know how many calories are in a 100, etc. it's really not that hard.
If anything, i found the serving size in the US terrible because i think too many people are relying on that information without weighing and it can be totally off. Like chips (about 13 chips) and then you weigh it and it's actually 9 chips are that weight. In my opinion, the entire "serving size" thing is complete and utter B.S. to begin with.
Atleast for me, having the calories per 100g (for people like me who weigh things) and calories per package are really the only thing we need to know.
p.s. i used to get pissed that everything was now harder to track, but if anything it's forced me to weigh things. *shrug*2 -
Once I was in a restaurant years ago (PF Changs, I think) trying to look at their nutrition information on my blackberry. I didn't have my reading glasses and the browser in my Blackberry phone was not as legible as what most of us have these days; and I didn't have my reading glasses. I ordered something that seemed to have reasonable calories until I finally noticed the portion size reported was typical HALF a plate. I could have easily missed this while in the restaurant in good faith.
My sense at the time was that they did this because many of their items are pretty high in calories, and, in some cases, higher than what one might expect.
Now I don't blame anyone for anything with regard to my own fitness; but people usually expect one entree serving to be the whole plate.
The change will not help me at this point because I am much more careful than I used to be. I do think thisw change is a good thing in general.0 -
Once I was in a restaurant years ago (PF Changs, I think) trying to look at their nutrition information on my blackberry. I didn't have my reading glasses and the browser in my Blackberry phone was not as legible as what most of us have these days; and I didn't have my reading glasses. I ordered something that seemed to have reasonable calories until I finally noticed the portion size reported was typical HALF a plate. I could have easily missed this while in the restaurant in good faith.
My sense at the time was that they did this because many of their items are pretty high in calories, and, in some cases, higher than what one might expect.
Now I don't blame anyone for anything with regard to my own fitness; but people usually expect one entree serving to be the whole plate.
The change will not help me at this point because I am much more careful than I used to be. I do think thisw change is a good thing in general.
I see your point but PF Chang's, if that's where it was, is likely not the best example since they advertise themselves as "family style" or at least they do around here.0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Calories per 100 grams is so much more user-friendly.
For whom? People that carry a food scale everywhere they go?
People who want to have an accurate idea of the actual nutritional info.
I wish that the US required calories per 100 grams to cut down on the hiding-through-rounding of the nutritional info. When the manufacturer's serving size is 7 grams, that lets them round down what they don't want you to see and round up what they do want you to see.
Pam cooking spray would have a harder time claiming they were fat free if they had to show per 100 grams rather than just their chosen 0.25 g serving size.
I noticed in Europe on a trip that they show TWO labels - one per serving (amount in the package) and another right beside it for per 100 g. I thought this was great
They should do that. Having the amount in the package was good since it's easier to keep track of calories eaten in your head, and having the per 100 g made it easy to calculate if eating a different serving size. Factors of 10 are easier to deal with. 0 -
Once I was in a restaurant years ago (PF Changs, I think) trying to look at their nutrition information on my blackberry. I didn't have my reading glasses and the browser in my Blackberry phone was not as legible as what most of us have these days; and I didn't have my reading glasses. I ordered something that seemed to have reasonable calories until I finally noticed the portion size reported was typical HALF a plate. I could have easily missed this while in the restaurant in good faith.
My sense at the time was that they did this because many of their items are pretty high in calories, and, in some cases, higher than what one might expect.
Now I don't blame anyone for anything with regard to my own fitness; but people usually expect one entree serving to be the whole plate.
The change will not help me at this point because I am much more careful than I used to be. I do think thisw change is a good thing in general.
I see your point but PF Chang's, if that's where it was, is likely not the best example since they advertise themselves as "family style" or at least they do around here.
That may be so; but now they DO report the calories for each plate rather than half-plate. (I've never noticed them marketing themselves as family style-but I could have overlooked it I suppose.)0 -
distinctlybeautiful wrote: »From the MFP blog on updated nutrition labels ...
"On the new label, serving sizes will increase to reflect today’s larger portion sizes –– because, by law, serving sizes must be based on what people are actually consuming, not what they should be consuming."
Yes, that certainly seems scary and confusing.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions