Wish Food Labels Weren't So Scammy!

cashidy

"Only 100 calories!" the label exclaims in a giant bright star. "Wow!" I think. I have finally found it, a healthy food with minimal calories! I eat a whole box and am surprised to find I feel bloated. Hmm. Did I read the label wrong? I go to investigate, and lo and behold, it is in fact a 100 calories....but there are 25 servings of 0.01257^2 *x2= pi circular cuboidal grams. Of course I did not measure that out, thinking I could rely on the company to be honest and forward with their nutrition information.

Or my breathe is a bit gross after working out, and I want something sweet, so I eat a pack of no-sugar Tic Tacs. Later on the internet I learn that in fact they are 100% sugar, but since the serving size is 1 tic tac, they can use a legal loop hole to label their candy no calorie no sugar.

Of course these are somewhat of an exaggeration, but I am so frustrated with having to shop for hours to find actually healthy food, which is rare. And having to carefully examine ingredients to make sure I do not get tricked into thinking I ate a healthy meal when I did in fact not. Why can't food companies just be honest or sell their products in single serve sizes? I hope their is an overhaul soon to fix this.

Of course I could buy only chicken and vegetables and weigh them, but working a busy schedule this is unrealistic for me and it won't stick.

tinkerbellang83

You want to be able to buy just 1 tic tac?

I think perhaps the problem lies with your definition of what is healthy.

MelanieCN77

The info is right there for you to read.

deannalfisher

so because you didn't read the label to see the serving size...they are scammy?

scarlett_k

Now you know to check for small print on labels

janejellyroll

Just flip the box and read the nutritional information label before you eat the whole box. They are being honest, they're giving you the calories for the average serving size right there on the label.

Generally, if something sounds too good to be true then it is.

estherdragonbat

Why would you assume that a product contains a single serving by default?

Muscleflex79

cashidy wrote: »

"Only 100 calories!" the label exclaims in a giant bright star. "Wow!" I think. I have finally found it, a healthy food with minimal calories! I eat a whole box and am surprised to find I feel bloated. Hmm. Did I read the label wrong? I go to investigate, and lo and behold, it is in fact a 100 calories....but there are 25 servings of 0.01257^2 *x2= pi circular cuboidal grams. Of course I did not measure that out, thinking I could rely on the company to be honest and forward with their nutrition information.

Or my breathe is a bit gross after working out, and I want something sweet, so I eat a pack of no-sugar Tic Tacs. Later on the internet I learn that in fact they are 100% sugar, but since the serving size is 1 tic tac, they can use a legal loop hole to label their candy no calorie no sugar.

Of course these are somewhat of an exaggeration, but I am so frustrated with having to shop for hours to find actually healthy food, which is rare. And having to carefully examine ingredients to make sure I do not get tricked into thinking I ate a healthy meal when I did in fact not. Why can't food companies just be honest or sell their products in single serve sizes? I hope their is an overhaul soon to fix this.

Of course I could buy only chicken and vegetables and weigh them, but working a busy schedule this is unrealistic for me and it won't stick.

how exactly would you propose they be more honest than providing the information on the box/product?? suggesting everything be sold in single serve sizes is ridiculous, unnecessary and would cost a fortune.

janejellyroll

Muscleflex79 wrote: »

cashidy wrote: »

"Only 100 calories!" the label exclaims in a giant bright star. "Wow!" I think. I have finally found it, a healthy food with minimal calories! I eat a whole box and am surprised to find I feel bloated. Hmm. Did I read the label wrong? I go to investigate, and lo and behold, it is in fact a 100 calories....but there are 25 servings of 0.01257^2 *x2= pi circular cuboidal grams. Of course I did not measure that out, thinking I could rely on the company to be honest and forward with their nutrition information.

Or my breathe is a bit gross after working out, and I want something sweet, so I eat a pack of no-sugar Tic Tacs. Later on the internet I learn that in fact they are 100% sugar, but since the serving size is 1 tic tac, they can use a legal loop hole to label their candy no calorie no sugar.

Of course these are somewhat of an exaggeration, but I am so frustrated with having to shop for hours to find actually healthy food, which is rare. And having to carefully examine ingredients to make sure I do not get tricked into thinking I ate a healthy meal when I did in fact not. Why can't food companies just be honest or sell their products in single serve sizes? I hope their is an overhaul soon to fix this.

Of course I could buy only chicken and vegetables and weigh them, but working a busy schedule this is unrealistic for me and it won't stick.

how exactly would you propose they be more honest than providing the information on the box/product?? suggesting everything be sold in single serve sizes is ridiculous, unnecessary and would cost a fortune.

I'm generally shopping for an entire week. I don't *want* single servings of every product. It would make my pantry a huge mess and it would make cooking meals that serve more than one really challenging.

MegaMooseEsq

Certainly some products should be labeled more reasonably, although the examples you name don't really seem problematic. I'm thinking more having a 20 oz soda contain 2.5 servings or a four piece kit-kat listed as two servings (I am making up these examples) - the kind of thing that doesn't reflect the reality of how people eat. And in the US at least, I believe that new nutritional labels are coming soon that address some of this.

That said, I'm not getting thinking that a container of tic-tacs is a serving. They're usually marketed as breath-mints, not candy, right?

Redordeadhead

Though the above posters are correct that the info was there to read, I can understand your frustration. There's a particular soup I buy that lists calories per serving with 2.5 servings per carton. Of course people are not likely to divide it into 2 full servings and one half - far more likely people eat 1.25 servings each.

I've also bought a 330ml can of a soft drink for which the calories on the front were for a serving size of 250ml. Again, who is drinking only 250ml of the 330ml container?

oldsoul918

Lessons learned:
1. Always read the nutrition info/label. Always.
2. Don't make assumptions.
3. If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. In which case, refer back to #1.

You win some...and you learn some!

belleflop

To complicate matters all calories on food labels are just best guesses at most. In some instances the calorie per serving can be up 20% off from the listed amount per serving. Enjoy!

cwolfman13

I don't think they're "scammy"...whole packages of things aren't typically a single serving and food labels always say XXX calories per serving and give you the number of servings. You just have to read the labels.

I'd also be wary of anything marketed as "healthy"...just eat more whole foods and then it's pretty easy to eat "healthy" and in many cases, pretty low calorie. Highly processed foods, even the one's marketed as "healthy" very often have a high calorie to lower nutrient ratio...

musicfan68

I have noticed on some things that you might get like a bag of chips, it shows the calories per serving, with 2.5 servings, but then they have another set of info beside it for the whole package, since most people eat a whole small bag of chips. That does help.

ottermotorcycle

While the serving size thing is a lesson in reading comprehension... there are situations where you really expect something to be ONE serving, and it isn't, like one can of a beverage or a three-pack of cookies (where the serving size is two. what am I supposed to do with the third one?!) So I feel you there. I also find it frustrating when things are labeled as 0 calories but can have up to 5 calories, or the serving size is so small it's impossible to adequately measure things like sugar or protein. It's just frustrating that you're having 10 of something, and it could be 49.999 calories you didn't account for!

In a place where the first response to "I'm not losing weight" is "are you counting accurately and perfectly by using a digital kitchen scale," I find it strange you don't have more support in your woes here.

Seffell

LMAO It's just common sense that a whole box of cereal for example is not 115cals.... I don't understand why you're complaining. Do you expext the huge sign to say instead "Only 20cals! This box contains 15 servings!" ...

not_a_runner

musicfan68 wrote: »

I have noticed on some things that you might get like a bag of chips, it shows the calories per serving, with 2.5 servings, but then they have another set of info beside it for the whole package, since most people eat a whole small bag of chips. That does help.

I think this is a new thing they are rolling out, I've started to see more labels like this as well.



I usually look at the serving size/nutrition before I buy, and then again before I eat it. (when I log/weigh it)
When I eat cereal I have like 3 "servings", so the single serve thing is a big "nope" from me.

AliceDark

I just bought a box of mini ice cream cones (like tiny Drumsticks) and found that the label gave the information per three-cone serving and also per box. While that's nice, I also think that anyone who is going to eat 12 ice cream cones and think that's a serving has bigger problems to work on than just not reading the box label.

Single-serving products are expensive and incredibly wasteful when it comes to packaging. We really don't need to be making more landfill waste so that people don't have to read product information.

sdolan91

What in the world... if you could only buy serving sizes of stuff... that'd be expensive and wasteful of packaging

The_Enginerd

I can see confusion on some things where the typical amount eaten is one package (e.g. a 20 oz soda, although I'd argue that it's our perception of serving size that is the issue there...), but you mistook something that was 100 calories/serving and had 25 servings in a box as a single serving, and that their issue...?

TavistockToad

And they say nurses have it tough... :laugh:

kimny72

First, the correct info IS on the item. Just look at the nutrition box. The front is advertising.

Second, if everything was sold in single serving packages it would be more expensive and such a horrible waste of resources to use all that extra packaging, just so you don't have to flip that package over and glance at the nutrition box before buying it???

Yep, there are some things that I always assumed were a single serving package that were actually two or even three servings. I fixed that by looking at the nutrition box. And honestly, I rarely look at the ingredient list - I can see calories, protein, and fiber all in that convenient nutrition box.

If it's taking you hours to find healthy food at the store (I hope that was also you exaggerating), then perhaps you have a too narrow idea of "healthy" food. Buying whole foods and cooking can take care of a lot of that, and once you start logging you learn pretty quickly which foods fit into your calorie goal and fill you up, and which don't.

steph2strong

If you buy a box of cereal/crackers/pasta/whatever, container of milk, bag of bread, yes there are multiple servings. No the company is not going to put on its label Only 1000 calories for this box of cereal/bag of bread etc, they are going to post what the serving size is. Yes, for many foods there are individually portioned foods... oatmeal packets, yogurts, granola bars, etc. But the single serve portions are more expensive than buying in bulk, I can't imagine feeding my family with individually bought little items.

The real issue is that many people have unrealistic views of what an actual portion size is. If you want to eat a low sugar, high volume food get some green vegetables or air popped popcorn.

Also, I think the majority of people on this site have extremely busy schedules and lives, with jobs, multiple children, spouses, ailing parents in their care, etc etc. If you want something you are going to make the time to make it happen. You know, like the 5 seconds it takes to read the nutritional panel on a box.

kshama2001

I bought some trail mix might look like a single serve package to someone unaware of how caloric nuts are, but it was in fact 2.5 servings. The label did of course say that there were 2.5 servings, but they could have been more obvious about it, which many companies are moving towards.

cwolfman13

kshama2001 wrote: »

I bought some trail mix might look like a single serve package to someone unaware of how caloric nuts are, but it was in fact 2.5 servings. The label did of course say that there were 2.5 servings, but they could have been more obvious about it, which many companies are moving towards.

With the new FDA labeling requirements, they won't be able to do that anymore...I forget the deadline for compliance.

Those are the one's that I find annoying when someone is clearly going to have the whole package...like a 20oz soda or something and it's listed as 2.5 servings or whatever...it should be a round number of servings...nobody is having .5 servings...

susanzimm

Learning to read food labels is tricky and tough at best. Educating yourself is key, especially for things you like to eat often. When in doubt, shop the perimeter of the store and leave the pre-packaged, already prepared stuff alone. Its never good for you, no matter what the labels say. Taking a day to cook and prepare food for the week helps me stay on track, with weighing portions out so I can just grab what I need for the day and go.

RivenV

cashidy wrote: »

having to shop for hours to find actually healthy food, which is rare

False. It's all just food. Look at the label, eat the food accordingly (IIFYM + calorie restrictions).

If you're shopping for hours looking for so-called healthy food, well, you've got bigger problems than worrying over nutrition labels like this. Majoring in the minors, IMO.

My father-in-law was looking at the Lenny and Larry protein cookies, and he outright said that it ought to be illegal for them to call one package (one cookie) two servings. "Who is going to eat half a cookie!? It's such foolishness!" And I'm over here like, "Me. I will eat half a cookie."

Have you seen these friggin' cookies? They're huge. If you stuff that whole thing in your face and really think that it's only 200 calories (one serving size), that's a you-problem. It's not up to the company to protect you from yourself. It's on you to conduct your own research and do your own diligence.

BusyRaeNOTBusty

kshama2001 wrote: »

I bought some trail mix might look like a single serve package to someone unaware of how caloric nuts are, but it was in fact 2.5 servings. The label did of course say that there were 2.5 servings, but they could have been more obvious about it, which many companies are moving towards.

Yeah, those packages of nuts right by the cash registers are definitely "single" servings and should be labeled as such. Jerks.

Ready2Rock206

Just because you can't be bothered to read the info that is there doesn't make it a scam.

MoveitlikeManda

so you really need to read things.

also how did you eat a whole box and only then realise you were stuffed and clearly had way more than one portion?

this is why eye balling dont work because nobody seems to have any idea what an actual serving size is