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.
New US nutrition labels
jen_092
Posts: 254 Member
I read about the new initiatives for labeling nutrition facts on food in the US early last year. They must be rolling them out soon because I saw the new label on an item for the first time yesterday. I think most of the changes seem really good like printing the calories in large font, and including added sugars specifically.
One change that seems debatable, though, is the new serving size guidelines. Instead of labeling with what the company thinks we should eat, it would now reflect what "people normally eat today". This could easily lead to people over eating. Though, it would always annoy me when, for example, the package of Poptarts wrapped two in a pouch and told you serving size is 1. Most people just eat the 2 anyway. So perhaps it's for the best to be realistic so people can understand the calories better.
What are some of your thoughts on the new serving size changes, or the label change in general? To read more about the changes I'm referring to - link here:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
One change that seems debatable, though, is the new serving size guidelines. Instead of labeling with what the company thinks we should eat, it would now reflect what "people normally eat today". This could easily lead to people over eating. Though, it would always annoy me when, for example, the package of Poptarts wrapped two in a pouch and told you serving size is 1. Most people just eat the 2 anyway. So perhaps it's for the best to be realistic so people can understand the calories better.
What are some of your thoughts on the new serving size changes, or the label change in general? To read more about the changes I'm referring to - link here:
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
0
Replies
-
As someone who looks for added sugars, and looks to see why two side by side products may have different calories, more information here is good.
The serving size bit is weird though.1 -
I'm good with this but I would like to see a breakdown of unsaturated fats, even if the amount is zero.While continuing to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat,” and “Trans Fat” on the label, “Calories from Fat” is being removed because research shows the type of fat is more important than the amount.
Finally. Nobody drinks 2/3 of a soda or eats 1/2 can of soup.Package size affects what people eat. So for packages that are between one and two servings, such as a 20 ounce soda or a 15-ounce can of soup, the calories and other nutrients will be required to be labeled as one serving because people typically consume it in one sitting.
One annoyance of mine not addressed here is number of servings per package. I have one of those envelopes of pasta in the pantry and it lists a serving size, but the number of servings is "about 4." What the *kitten* is "about 4?" Either add more product or remove some. Give me something easy to measure.10 -
I feel like "added sugars" isn't really necessary if you read labels and understand what's in things anyway, but I support it as a change even though it won't affect me. (Realistically, I don't buy that much with multiple ingredients, and what I do buy I'm really familiar with, so it wouldn't be expected to.)
I haven't seen the bigger calorie labels yet, but seems reasonable.
I agree that calories from fat was pointless.
I have mixed feelings about the serving size thing, OP, for the reasons you mention (and it's been a long time since a can of soda was more than one serving). I do think that things that appear to be single serving or are often eaten that way SHOULD be labeled as such, since people report being confused, and I also think things should have even numbers of servings in a container if possible (none of this "about 2.5 servings"). But I also think that we shouldn't give into portion distortion by further distorting ideas of what a portion is -- I would prefer that dry pasta still be 2 oz/56 g, as to me that's a perfectly normal serving size even if I often eat more or less (more often less), and I certainly think 100 g or .5 cup is reasonable for ice cream and don't see why we should suggest that half a pint is an expected serving.
But, eh.
I've been convinced that it wouldn't hurt to do it the way they do many other places and have our serving size things plus a 100 g serving column too, for easier comparison.
I really do think that the label is something of a minor issue in that they are fine now if one reads them but the reality is that most people ignore them (and even ignore calorie information posted in a restaurant where you can't miss it).2 -
I don't get why American labels don't have a standardized amount like 100 grams instead of all these arbitrary serving sizes.
But then again, you guys are one of 3 countries in the world who still uses the imperial system which is also pretty arbitrary lol.6 -
I wish we'd use the metric system. It'd be so much easier to figure out how to covert everything.Mycophilia wrote: »I don't get why American labels don't have a standardized amount like 100 grams instead of all these arbitrary serving sizes.
But then again, you guys are one of 3 countries in the world who still uses the imperial system which is also pretty arbitrary lol.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
2 -
We use grams on labels.
I like grams on food and don't mind kilograms for weights at the gym, but am part of the problem on other things, as when people give height in centimeters or speeds in kilograms or (especially) temperature in Centigrade I am annoyed (not at them, but in general) that I have no idea what they mean until I do the conversion. At least the centimeter/kilometer conversions are pretty easy but they still feel wrong to me. (I know it's all what you grow up with.)2 -
I would like to see a 100 g listing too.
This is not related to nutrition info but I'd really like to see a standardized spot for listing expiration dates. Maybe right by the nutrition panel.4 -
Mycophilia wrote: »I don't get why American labels don't have a standardized amount like 100 grams instead of all these arbitrary serving sizes.
But then again, you guys are one of 3 countries in the world who still uses the imperial system which is also pretty arbitrary lol.
I agree for food. It's so easy to do the math.
Many years ago when the US was going metric(70s) there were some things that made no sense. I was a hardwood lumber inspector and the whole system was based on twelfths and eighths. It would have made a lot of incompatible measures.
Sadly we could have done the bits that made sense and kept legacy where needed. That would have been too easy.0 -
I would like to see a 100 g listing too.
This is not related to nutrition info but I'd really like to see a standardized spot for listing expiration dates. Maybe right by the nutrition panel.
That would be nice. The yogurt I buy prints it on the foil underneath the lid, so I have to remember to write the date on the lid once I use it.0 -
That looks pretty clear, though as I'm used to the 100g/100ml option I'd miss that.
I do get that's it's useful to see how much of everything you are getting for the actual serving size that you eat, but the 100g just makes comparisons useful.
One thing I do like in the linked page is their comment about added sugar: "Scientific data shows that it is difficult to meet nutrient needs while staying within calorie limits if you consume more than 10 percent of your total daily calories from added sugar".
This seems like a great way to explain that sugar itself isn't evil, but it can be a problem if too much pushes out other nutrient rich foods from your diet.
I agree that standardised expiry dates would be very handy - not only location, but format too.
4 -
I pretty much like all of it. I don't think the serving size bit is encouraging higher portions. Like they said, if you're selling a 20oz soda and you know most people drink up the whole bottle and not in three separate sittings, please just provide calories for the entire bottle.
After reading their example label, all I could think was "what is this awesome food? It's got 8mg of iron!" Definitely like them showing quantities for vitamins and minerals rather than just percentages.2 -
I pretty much like all of it. I don't think the serving size bit is encouraging higher portions. Like they said, if you're selling a 20oz soda and you know most people drink up the whole bottle and not in three separate sittings, please just provide calories for the entire bottle.
After reading their example label, all I could think was "what is this awesome food? It's got 8mg of iron!" Definitely like them showing quantities for vitamins and minerals rather than just percentages.
Not only the addition of actual amounts (which is a very welcome change), but the dropping of A and C in favor of D and Potassium is also fastastic; especially the latter.4 -
I'm confused.
In the side-by-side example -- which looks to be the same product -- the old version has "Sugars 1g." The new one has 12g of sugars, 10g added sugars. Does this mean added sugars were not listed or counted beforehand? Or is this just a really bad example they've used?0 -
Mycophilia wrote: »I don't get why American labels don't have a standardized amount like 100 grams instead of all these arbitrary serving sizes.
But then again, you guys are one of 3 countries in the world who still uses the imperial system which is also pretty arbitrary lol.
I don't understand it either, but I guess it's what they're used to so they manage it. Personally, I not only look at the nutrition per 100g but I also look at the shelf-sticker for the price per 100g, so that I can compare like-with-like.
Mind you, when I lived in the US I never understood why the sticker price wasn't the price I had to pay - for some reason they leave it to the customer to figure out taxes and only tell them at the checkout!2 -
I'm confused.
In the side-by-side example -- which looks to be the same product -- the old version has "Sugars 1g." The new one has 12g of sugars, 10g added sugars. Does this mean added sugars were not listed or counted beforehand? Or is this just a really bad example they've used?
Bad example, from the looks of it. It looks like they just arbitrarily decided to jack up the numbers on the new version to illustrate the change.0 -
There was a certain michelina's (sp) dinner I used to eat a lot that listed the servings per container as "about 1.5."
That was pretty dumb.1 -
Huh.
Changes in Canada as well.
http://healthycanadians.gc.ca/eating-nutrition/label-etiquetage/changes-modifications-eng.php
I notice we don't include Vitamin D on ours. I wonder why not considering we probably have a harder time hitting the requirements up here.2 -
CurlyCockney wrote: »Mycophilia wrote: »I don't get why American labels don't have a standardized amount like 100 grams instead of all these arbitrary serving sizes.
But then again, you guys are one of 3 countries in the world who still uses the imperial system which is also pretty arbitrary lol.
I don't understand it either, but I guess it's what they're used to so they manage it. Personally, I not only look at the nutrition per 100g but I also look at the shelf-sticker for the price per 100g, so that I can compare like-with-like.
Mind you, when I lived in the US I never understood why the sticker price wasn't the price I had to pay - for some reason they leave it to the customer to figure out taxes and only tell them at the checkout!
Pretty much all of this. When I go on holiday over there I'm not really paying attention as I just go with what I fancy and don't track but I do look out of curiosity sometimes. The whole cups as servings thing will never not annoy me.0 -
Looks pretty good, though I thought I read on another thread that they were removing the cholesterol line, which is still on the new labeling? Looks like the biggest change will be the added sugars line-I don't track sugar intake by itself so it doesn't affect me, but this should help with all the posts from people who are trying to figure out added vs naturally occuring sugar intake.0
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Looks pretty good, though I thought I read on another thread that they were removing the cholesterol line, which is still on the new labeling? Looks like the biggest change will be the added sugars line-I don't track sugar intake by itself so it doesn't affect me, but this should help with all the posts from people who are trying to figure out added vs naturally occuring sugar intake.
I guess that assumes that MFP will modify the Food Database to add fields for Added Sugar and Vitamin D, I sure hope they do, plus maybe a few more fields while they are at it.
Large manufacturers have until July 2018 to comply, and smaller ones until July 2019. With some canned and dry items, expiration dates are sometimes as long as a year from the packaging date. We will be dealing with the old labels in the US until at least 2020. Oh well.1 -
I think the serving size things makes sense...I don't think food manufacturers used multiple serving sizes for a packaged good as "their recommendation" but rather, I believe they did this to mislead to some extent. If something comes in a single package, the single package should be the serving because that's what most people are going to consume and the calories will reflect that now without any additional math on the part of the consumer (not that it's hard). I don't know anyone who picks up a 20 oz soda and says, "ok...I'm only drinking 1/3 of this because that's the manufacturers recommended serving...they're most likely going to drink the whole damn thing.2
-
crzycatlady1 wrote: »Looks pretty good, though I thought I read on another thread that they were removing the cholesterol line, which is still on the new labeling? Looks like the biggest change will be the added sugars line-I don't track sugar intake by itself so it doesn't affect me, but this should help with all the posts from people who are trying to figure out added vs naturally occuring sugar intake.
I guess that assumes that MFP will modify the Food Database to add fields for Added Sugar and Vitamin D, I sure hope they do, plus maybe a few more fields while they are at it.
Large manufacturers have until July 2018 to comply, and smaller ones until July 2019. With some canned and dry items, expiration dates are sometimes as long as a year from the packaging date. We will be dealing with the old labels in the US until at least 2020. Oh well.
Good point!0 -
If the 20 oz sodas are like the diet ones (I am doubting that the non diet would be different, but haven't looked at one), then they DO say 1 serving. Most of the things that used to be ridiculous in dividing up serving size have been corrected with the last change (or longer ago), I think. Sure, there are still things like 2 big cookies = 2 servings even if they are under one wrapper, but it becomes hard to judge what's one serving or not, as a tub of cottage cheese is obviously multiple servings even though one package and some might choose to eat it all.
Part of this is our habits and ideas about serving sizes changing. I'm old enough that 20 oz of soda DOES still seem like a couple of servings to me (I buy that size because it's convenient, but typically don't drink it all in one sitting), and back when I was a kid did people pour a can into two glasses? Possibly. Some single package snack things seem obviously multiple servings to me (huge if one serving), but some don't. Hard to judge. I have been convinced that the 100 g as an alternative is a good way, and my preferred method would probably be to put how many servings with the calorie information in big font on the front. I think it would be counter-productive, though, to label a whole pint of ice cream as one serving (or even 2, which was being floated).
That said, I don't feel that strongly about it, since I suspect it has only minimal effect.0 -
https://www.heb.com/product-detail/coca-cola-classic-coke/145352
Sodas, at least Coke, do list one serving. Juices I've checked out at gas stations are the ones that tend not to.
https://www.heb.com/product-detail/bodyarmor-strawberry-banana-superdrink/19646690 -
I sure hope they change the labeling on microwave popcorn. I can never figure out the serving size on the big bags. The 100-cal pop, NP. But the bigger bags, it has something like 3tbs popped or serving size 1 cup, but with different info. How are you supposed to measure that? I just want to know what's in the whole bag.8
-
DancingMoosie wrote: »I sure hope they change the labeling on microwave popcorn. I can never figure out the serving size on the big bags. The 100-cal pop, NP. But the bigger bags, it has something like 3tbs popped or serving size 1 cup, but with different info. How are you supposed to measure that? I just want to know what's in the whole bag.
I noticed this as well. I swear to god, you need a degree in quantum physics to figure out an accurate start to finish caloric value on microwave popcorn. And god help you if it has an additional flavor packet involved.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DancingMoosie wrote: »I sure hope they change the labeling on microwave popcorn. I can never figure out the serving size on the big bags. The 100-cal pop, NP. But the bigger bags, it has something like 3tbs popped or serving size 1 cup, but with different info. How are you supposed to measure that? I just want to know what's in the whole bag.
I noticed this as well. I swear to god, you need a degree in quantum physics to figure out an accurate start to finish caloric value on microwave popcorn. And god help you if it has an additional flavor packet involved.
I'm pretty sure only basic algebra is necessary (*wink*)
(weight unpopped, grams) * ( calories / gram) = total calories
(weight served) / (total weight popped ) = (fraction of bag)
(fraction of bag) * (total calories) = (calories in your serving).
Although I could set up a matrix and solve it by diagonalizing, but that would probably be overkill, I think.
qualifications: theoretical physical chemistry PhD
aka applied quantum physics.8 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DancingMoosie wrote: »I sure hope they change the labeling on microwave popcorn. I can never figure out the serving size on the big bags. The 100-cal pop, NP. But the bigger bags, it has something like 3tbs popped or serving size 1 cup, but with different info. How are you supposed to measure that? I just want to know what's in the whole bag.
I noticed this as well. I swear to god, you need a degree in quantum physics to figure out an accurate start to finish caloric value on microwave popcorn. And god help you if it has an additional flavor packet involved.
I'm pretty sure only basic algebra is necessary (*wink*)
(weight unpopped, grams) * ( calories / gram) = total calories
(weight served) / (total weight popped ) = (fraction of bag)
(fraction of bag) * (total calories) = (calories in your serving).
Although I could set up a matrix and solve it by diagonalizing, but that would probably be overkill, I think.
qualifications: theoretical physical chemistry PhD
aka applied quantum physics.
My brain hurts.
I'll stick with the mini, single-serving bags that are easier to log.9 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DancingMoosie wrote: »I sure hope they change the labeling on microwave popcorn. I can never figure out the serving size on the big bags. The 100-cal pop, NP. But the bigger bags, it has something like 3tbs popped or serving size 1 cup, but with different info. How are you supposed to measure that? I just want to know what's in the whole bag.
I noticed this as well. I swear to god, you need a degree in quantum physics to figure out an accurate start to finish caloric value on microwave popcorn. And god help you if it has an additional flavor packet involved.
I'm pretty sure only basic algebra is necessary (*wink*)
(weight unpopped, grams) * ( calories / gram) = total calories
(weight served) / (total weight popped ) = (fraction of bag)
(fraction of bag) * (total calories) = (calories in your serving).
Although I could set up a matrix and solve it by diagonalizing, but that would probably be overkill, I think.
qualifications: theoretical physical chemistry PhD
aka applied quantum physics.
This has got to be one of the best things I've seen posted on here in weeks.
3 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »DancingMoosie wrote: »I sure hope they change the labeling on microwave popcorn. I can never figure out the serving size on the big bags. The 100-cal pop, NP. But the bigger bags, it has something like 3tbs popped or serving size 1 cup, but with different info. How are you supposed to measure that? I just want to know what's in the whole bag.
I noticed this as well. I swear to god, you need a degree in quantum physics to figure out an accurate start to finish caloric value on microwave popcorn. And god help you if it has an additional flavor packet involved.
I'm pretty sure only basic algebra is necessary (*wink*)
(weight unpopped, grams) * ( calories / gram) = total calories
(weight served) / (total weight popped ) = (fraction of bag)
(fraction of bag) * (total calories) = (calories in your serving).
Although I could set up a matrix and solve it by diagonalizing, but that would probably be overkill, I think.
qualifications: theoretical physical chemistry PhD
aka applied quantum physics.
I do this a lot with the recipe builder. I may or may not have made a spreadsheet to do these calculations for me for logging Thanksgiving dinner and the leftovers...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