Wish Food Labels Weren't So Scammy!

245

Replies

  • cheryldumais
    cheryldumais Posts: 1,907 Member
    I feel your pain and I get the point you are trying to make. I bought Naan one day, something we don't normally eat so I was oblivious to the high calories. The serving size turned out to be for 1/2 piece. Who eats a half slice of bread as a normal serving? Yes I know many of us are eating smaller servings but I'm talking a normal serving size... I thought huh, 190 calories isn't bad at all (we were making pizza). Turned out it was 380! Quite a difference. Read carefully my friends.
  • Silentpadna
    Silentpadna Posts: 1,306 Member
    The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.

    I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.

    Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.

    I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.

    Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.

    For some things for sure...but I'm not sure how someone can look at a package that contains 25 servings and think it's a single serve...small packages that are 2 or 2.5 servings I can see...something that is 25 servings is going to be a fairly large package...like a cereal box or something.
  • Silentpadna
    Silentpadna Posts: 1,306 Member
    The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.

    I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.

    Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.

    In the US, serving sizes are based on FDA databases. They aren't determined by the companies. The serving size is based on what consumers self-report as a typical serving of types of food.

    So if you eat 2.5 servings of crackers, you're actually eating more than the "average" for crackers (at least based on self-reports). This isn't the fault of the people who make Cheeze-Its. We're still capable of deciding to eat less than what is in a package.

    I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, or even that they are doing something unlawful. I understand all of that, but I do doubt the self-reporting of foods like that, those that for someone like me allow me to binge on. My point is that they are sold in that size package for a good reason, and it benefits the supplier to have a nice low(er) calorie number to use on their label. I haven't compared the bag to the box, but in theory they (the serving sizes) should be the same. I'm sure that that particular size is made after a fair amount of market research to determine their best bang for the buck. And although there are 2.5 servings, it seems doubtful to me that they are marketed to share or to only eat part of.

    It's not misleading to me. I read labels all the time. But I can see how they can capitalize on others' lack of attention to detail. That happens all the time. Just watch tv advertisements close enough and you see it everywhere.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.

    I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.

    Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.

    In the US, serving sizes are based on FDA databases. They aren't determined by the companies. The serving size is based on what consumers self-report as a typical serving of types of food.

    So if you eat 2.5 servings of crackers, you're actually eating more than the "average" for crackers (at least based on self-reports). This isn't the fault of the people who make Cheeze-Its. We're still capable of deciding to eat less than what is in a package.

    I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, or even that they are doing something unlawful. I understand all of that, but I do doubt the self-reporting of foods like that, those that for someone like me allow me to binge on. My point is that they are sold in that size package for a good reason, and it benefits the supplier to have a nice low(er) calorie number to use on their label. I haven't compared the bag to the box, but in theory they (the serving sizes) should be the same. I'm sure that that particular size is made after a fair amount of market research to determine their best bang for the buck. And although there are 2.5 servings, it seems doubtful to me that they are marketed to share or to only eat part of.

    It's not misleading to me. I read labels all the time. But I can see how they can capitalize on others' lack of attention to detail. That happens all the time. Just watch tv advertisements close enough and you see it everywhere.

    I agree with you that self-reporting can be really inaccurate.

    If you didn't mean that food companies are trying to mislead us, I apologize for misreading you. When you wrote "I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose," I felt as if you were attributing a specific motivation to them when the truth is that they can't adjust the serving size to 1 even if they wanted to.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    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.

    Weight loss is about calories first - calories second - and well, calories ALWAYS. You can choose to lose weight just by eating smaller portions. You can choose to lose wight while including "more" healthy foods, or you can try to eat "perfectly" while losing weight.....your choice.

    Think about what you can stick to......not just while dieting, but also when maintaining. Find some healthy changes you can do forever.
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,532 Member
    The only package I've ever been frustrated by was a box of granola cereal. When looking more closely at the box, it said 10 servings per package, but there were four individual inner packages. Yup, each inner package was 2.5 servings. Fortunately, I read the box and weighed the serving.

    It seems to me that you are becoming increasingly aware of foods and food labels, and seeing demons where there really isn't anything. Things that are right on the label aren't hidden. Serving sizes that are right on the label aren't hidden. It's like with everything else you purchase (vehicles, homes, etc.) it is on you to educate yourself. Keep working at it, keep learning.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    cashidy wrote: »
    And obviously I am exaggerating, but there does need to be some sort of change and false advertising really needs to be cracked down on.

    It's not false advertising to say, for example, 220 calories per serving...can of ravioli contains 2 servings. They're telling you it's 2 servings and each serving is 220 calories...whether you split that with someone else or not would be up to you. Also, serving sizes are established by the FDA, not the company making the product. The FDA is making some changes to their serving sizes to more accurately reflect what an individual would eat...but it's the FDA, not the company making the food that determines what they have to put on the label as a serving.

    As far as something like All Natural Apple Juice being a flavored drink instead...I can't say that I've ever seen that.
  • AliceDark
    AliceDark Posts: 3,886 Member
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cashidy wrote: »
    And obviously I am exaggerating, but there does need to be some sort of change and false advertising really needs to be cracked down on.

    It's not false advertising to say, for example, 220 calories per serving...can of ravioli contains 2 servings. They're telling you it's 2 servings and each serving is 220 calories...whether you split that with someone else or not would be up to you. Also, serving sizes are established by the FDA, not the company making the product. The FDA is making some changes to their serving sizes to more accurately reflect what an individual would eat...but it's the FDA, not the company making the food that determines what they have to put on the label as a serving.

    As far as something like All Natural Apple Juice being a flavored drink instead...I can't say that I've ever seen that.
    I've seen that one quite a bit. In the US, at least, "All Natural" isn't a phrase that the FDA regulates, so companies have a LOT of leeway in terms of when they use it. It's effectively meaningless in terms of giving you information about the product.

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    AliceDark wrote: »
    cwolfman13 wrote: »
    cashidy wrote: »
    And obviously I am exaggerating, but there does need to be some sort of change and false advertising really needs to be cracked down on.

    It's not false advertising to say, for example, 220 calories per serving...can of ravioli contains 2 servings. They're telling you it's 2 servings and each serving is 220 calories...whether you split that with someone else or not would be up to you. Also, serving sizes are established by the FDA, not the company making the product. The FDA is making some changes to their serving sizes to more accurately reflect what an individual would eat...but it's the FDA, not the company making the food that determines what they have to put on the label as a serving.

    As far as something like All Natural Apple Juice being a flavored drink instead...I can't say that I've ever seen that.
    I've seen that one quite a bit. In the US, at least, "All Natural" isn't a phrase that the FDA regulates, so companies have a LOT of leeway in terms of when they use it. It's effectively meaningless in terms of giving you information about the product.

    In the US, "juice" is a regulated term (probably other places too, but I'm not as familiar).

    "Fruit juice" is limited to 100% juice. If other things are added, it has to be called "juice cocktail" or "juice drink." So if OP has seen something called "All natural apple juice" and it has other ingredients, that's something actionable that can be addressed.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    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.

    I picked up some of those because they looked good and had some solid nutrients. But when I looked at that little package and realized there were 2-3 servings in it and each had 180 calories ... pass.
  • quiksylver296
    quiksylver296 Posts: 28,439 Member
    glassyo wrote: »
    Why would you assume that a product contains a single serving by default?

    Pints of Ben & Jerrys aren't single servings?

    (But, yeah, not so scammy if you actually read the label :) )

    Of course they are.
This discussion has been closed.