Wish Food Labels Weren't So Scammy!
Replies
-
I weep for the future of humanity...(not really, I actually think the planet would be a lot better off without us).10
-
janejellyroll wrote: »I am the only one responsible for what I eat and part of that responsibility includes reading labels, knowing portion sizes, etc. Of course companies aren't going to spell it out or make it easy for you, if they did, you wouldn't grab that bag of chips that's actually 3 servings and eat the whole thing, because then they won't make money.
Many chip companies sell single-serving bags (real single serving bags) and they seem to be doing fine. I ate a single serving bag of Lay's chips just the other day.
You are right, but sometimes we still have to read the label to know even if it's a single serving bag. Or if it isn't.
I don't see reading the label as an imposition, I guess. I mean, some foods are packaged in single servings, some foods are packaged in multiple servings. It always make sense to take a quick look at the package to check if your assumption is the right one.
Companies that make foods people want to eat will make money despite packaging because you've got all kinds of customers -- people who want to buy single servings of foods, people who want to buy and eat multiple servings at a time, and people who are buying multiple servings because they're actually feeding multiple people.2 -
To everyone who thinks the confusion is silly, lots of people are confused, which is why the FDA is changing label requirements.
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
... we are making important updates to ensure consumers have access to the information they need to make informed decisions about the foods they eat. These changes include increasing the type size for “Calories,” “servings per container,” and the “Serving size” declaration, and bolding the number of calories and the “Serving size” declaration to highlight this information.1 -
Serving size/servings per container is the first thing below the title Nutrition Facts on the label. What's so hard?
10 -
@janejellyroll Do you know what is the definition of a serving size?janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
First, it's not impossible. I often eat just a single serving of foods, including tortilla chips. It may be challenging for some people or with some foods, but it's done.
Second, I know self-reporting is an issue and I'm not defending it as some sort of accurate process. I think there is room for a conversation about how it could be improved. I'm simply pointing out that companies aren't determining the serving size. It's done by the FDA.
Right? And then the whole "hidden sugar" thing, which was actually a thing for a while because as soon as sugar became evil manufacturers switched to using everything that could be used as a sweetener that wasn't actually table sugar. You practically had to carry around a list of things that were sugar besides the obvious maple syrup and honey. It was a great day when labels were required to include "total sugar" on the label whatever it was called.
eta: I was trying to quote lorrpb's comment on pre-required labels, not sure why Jane's comments showed up instead. Sorry.
3 -
This content has been removed.
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »I am the only one responsible for what I eat and part of that responsibility includes reading labels, knowing portion sizes, etc. Of course companies aren't going to spell it out or make it easy for you, if they did, you wouldn't grab that bag of chips that's actually 3 servings and eat the whole thing, because then they won't make money.
Many chip companies sell single-serving bags (real single serving bags) and they seem to be doing fine. I ate a single serving bag of Lay's chips just the other day.
You are right, but sometimes we still have to read the label to know even if it's a single serving bag. Or if it isn't.
Of course you do...but as has been stated, what constitutes a serving size is established by the FDA...a 3 serving bag of chips is going to be a mediumish sized bag...I would be able to tell by looking that it isn't one serving and would look at the label to determine how many servings it is...but I'd know right away that it wasn't one.
The single serving chips (at least the ones that I buy) have a bag that is about the size of my hand, maybe a little bigger. They're clearly smaller than the "big grab" bags of the same product that have 2.5 or 3 servings.
1 -
Ericnutrition 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.
The calorie counts on packaged foods and some drinks are for the birds. Literally. Because you usually have to multiply by 2 or 3 to get a human portion. Given that most people don't weight and/or measure the food, it is malpractice on the part of the FDA.
I recently bought some blueberry drink. Calorie count was reasonable. After I drank it I read the label again. There were two servings. Ridiculous.
How would that be malpractice on the part of the FDA? The FDA determined a serving size of that beverage is...the company decided how much to include in the product as per what the demand is for that product.
For most people, the nutritional information is just a bunch of numbers anyway...XXX calories is pretty meaningless information for most people. Before I got into nutrition, you could tell me something was whatever calories and I'd just stare at you blankly because it's meaningless without context...most people don't even know what a calorie is or how many calories they need anyway...2 -
suzannesimmons3 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
A serving of fruit gums is 8.....they are TINY.
Swedish Fish are the same way. I used to eat them all the time, but it's just not worth it anymore.
0 -
I just want to say on the idea that no one eats half a can of ravioli that things like canned ravioli are what I picture a child eating and they don't all eat whole cans of ravioli at one sitting.
You really have to decide how much you are going to eat of something and figure out how many calories that is.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
The USDA determines serving size by self-reporting but they also calculate it via averages and/or medians. 1000 people report how much they eat in a serving. The serving size is then determined and standardized.2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
@janejellyroll Do you know what is the definition of a serving size?janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
First, it's not impossible. I often eat just a single serving of foods, including tortilla chips. It may be challenging for some people or with some foods, but it's done.
Second, I know self-reporting is an issue and I'm not defending it as some sort of accurate process. I think there is room for a conversation about how it could be improved. I'm simply pointing out that companies aren't determining the serving size. It's done by the FDA.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.
Are you asking how the FDA defines the term "serving size" or are you asking how they determine what the serving size of a food is? If it's the latter, it's based on self-reporting from individuals of how much they eat (I don't know how they find their focus groups for this or how large the groups were).
Again, I'm not defending this is an accurate practice, because I think we all know how wonky self-reporting can be. I'm just pointing out that it isn't determined by the companies. When a company prints that there are 2.5 servings in a bag of chips, that's based on an FDA determination of what a serving size of potato chips is, it isn't Frito-Lay trying to get one over on us.
A slight correction: it is the USDA not the FDA that determines serving sizes. The FDA is responsible for nutrition labeling regulations. Yes, it is confusing.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
@janejellyroll Do you know what is the definition of a serving size?janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
First, it's not impossible. I often eat just a single serving of foods, including tortilla chips. It may be challenging for some people or with some foods, but it's done.
Second, I know self-reporting is an issue and I'm not defending it as some sort of accurate process. I think there is room for a conversation about how it could be improved. I'm simply pointing out that companies aren't determining the serving size. It's done by the FDA.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.
Are you asking how the FDA defines the term "serving size" or are you asking how they determine what the serving size of a food is? If it's the latter, it's based on self-reporting from individuals of how much they eat (I don't know how they find their focus groups for this or how large the groups were).
Again, I'm not defending this is an accurate practice, because I think we all know how wonky self-reporting can be. I'm just pointing out that it isn't determined by the companies. When a company prints that there are 2.5 servings in a bag of chips, that's based on an FDA determination of what a serving size of potato chips is, it isn't Frito-Lay trying to get one over on us.
A slight correction: it is the USDA not the FDA that determines serving sizes. The FDA is responsible for nutrition labeling regulations.
Thank you for the correction, that makes total sense now that I think about it.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
@janejellyroll Do you know what is the definition of a serving size?janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
First, it's not impossible. I often eat just a single serving of foods, including tortilla chips. It may be challenging for some people or with some foods, but it's done.
Second, I know self-reporting is an issue and I'm not defending it as some sort of accurate process. I think there is room for a conversation about how it could be improved. I'm simply pointing out that companies aren't determining the serving size. It's done by the FDA.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.
Are you asking how the FDA defines the term "serving size" or are you asking how they determine what the serving size of a food is? If it's the latter, it's based on self-reporting from individuals of how much they eat (I don't know how they find their focus groups for this or how large the groups were).
Again, I'm not defending this is an accurate practice, because I think we all know how wonky self-reporting can be. I'm just pointing out that it isn't determined by the companies. When a company prints that there are 2.5 servings in a bag of chips, that's based on an FDA determination of what a serving size of potato chips is, it isn't Frito-Lay trying to get one over on us.
A slight correction: it is the USDA not the FDA that determines serving sizes. The FDA is responsible for nutrition labeling regulations.
Thank you for the correction, that makes total sense now that I think about it.
Think of it this way: the FDA determines what information must be included on the label and the USDA determines the actual values for that information.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
@janejellyroll Do you know what is the definition of a serving size?janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
First, it's not impossible. I often eat just a single serving of foods, including tortilla chips. It may be challenging for some people or with some foods, but it's done.
Second, I know self-reporting is an issue and I'm not defending it as some sort of accurate process. I think there is room for a conversation about how it could be improved. I'm simply pointing out that companies aren't determining the serving size. It's done by the FDA.
I'm sorry, I don't quite understand the question.
Are you asking how the FDA defines the term "serving size" or are you asking how they determine what the serving size of a food is? If it's the latter, it's based on self-reporting from individuals of how much they eat (I don't know how they find their focus groups for this or how large the groups were).
Again, I'm not defending this is an accurate practice, because I think we all know how wonky self-reporting can be. I'm just pointing out that it isn't determined by the companies. When a company prints that there are 2.5 servings in a bag of chips, that's based on an FDA determination of what a serving size of potato chips is, it isn't Frito-Lay trying to get one over on us.
A slight correction: it is the USDA not the FDA that determines serving sizes. The FDA is responsible for nutrition labeling regulations.
Thank you for the correction, that makes total sense now that I think about it.
Think of it this way: the FDA determines what information must be included on the label and the USDA determines the actual values for that information.
This is going to help me keep it straight in the future, thanks.0 -
I don't pay any attention to what they print on the front of the box to determine whether or not I want to eat it. For example, one cereal says it is an "excellent source of calcium" on the front, but on the side nutrition panel, the calcium is from the dairy milk you add! But I used plant based milk! The things on the front I consider advertising! You really have to read EVERYTHING, and decide whether it makes sense, or not.2
-
OHFlamingo wrote: »I don't pay any attention to what they print on the front of the box to determine whether or not I want to eat it. For example, one cereal says it is an "excellent source of calcium" on the front, but on the side nutrition panel, the calcium is from the dairy milk you add! But I used plant based milk! The things on the front I consider advertising! You really have to read EVERYTHING, and decide whether it makes sense, or not.
Excellent point. I like the idea of thinking of the front of the package as advertising. It really is because the whole point is to entice you to buy the product.2 -
OHFlamingo wrote: »I don't pay any attention to what they print on the front of the box to determine whether or not I want to eat it. For example, one cereal says it is an "excellent source of calcium" on the front, but on the side nutrition panel, the calcium is from the dairy milk you add! But I used plant based milk! The things on the front I consider advertising! You really have to read EVERYTHING, and decide whether it makes sense, or not.
My personal favorites are the claims that are totally obvious. I recently bought a bag of sugar that said "Low fat" on the front.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »OHFlamingo wrote: »I don't pay any attention to what they print on the front of the box to determine whether or not I want to eat it. For example, one cereal says it is an "excellent source of calcium" on the front, but on the side nutrition panel, the calcium is from the dairy milk you add! But I used plant based milk! The things on the front I consider advertising! You really have to read EVERYTHING, and decide whether it makes sense, or not.
My personal favorites are the claims that are totally obvious. I recently bought a bag of sugar that said "Low fat" on the front.
I had something with a big gluten free claim on the front and my Grandma told me I shouldn't buy things made gluten free since I don't have a gluten issue - I can't remember the reasoning - but my son pointed out it was something that would never contain gluten anyway. The gluten free claims were just for the fad dieters to buy it.2 -
The first time I lost weight counting calories was in the late 70s. There were NO nutrition labels back then. You had to look up generic foods in a book and use the generic calories listed, like "Tomato soup 100 calories" or whatever. Having any kind of nutrition label is a god-send!
Nonetheless, I recently noticed that a favorite frozen entree, items almost ALWAYS intended as single serving unless labelled as "family size" or "large size", was actually listed as 2 servings. That was annoying, but completely my fault for not reading that before.
i realized the same issue with some Amy's cheese enchiladas recently. . 2 servings which is all well and good if they weren't frozen together in one dish surrounded by a block of sauce. . how in heck am i supposed to even cook one serving? Glad i read the labels when i got that one. . i assumed that they were 2 individualy wrapped enchiladas but oh well. .they were tasty anyway.3 -
Why do they not advertise honestly and offer serving sizes that are realistic? No one eats half a can of ravioli. They eat the whole can, but if they label it as half a serving they can advertise it as 220 calories. Advertising as all natural and healthy when something has added sugars and tons of fillers. I shouldn't have to read every ingredient on every product ever when I am shopping to make sure they aren't lying. The serving sizes need to at least be standardized and companies should not be able to advertise "All Natural Apple Juice" in big letters with Flavored Drink in small letters and a tiny little print on the back that says "contains no fruit juice". You really think that is being honest, and that they don't know they can trick people into thinking it is healthy? I am educated and know what to look for, but tons of people are not so I can see why it is hard for many to lose weight.
If you ever decide to buy a used car take all your money and your first born to the dealer, because that's what it will cost you.
Buyer beware and informed.5 -
kshama2001 wrote: »To everyone who thinks the confusion is silly, lots of people are confused, which is why the FDA is changing label requirements.
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm
... we are making important updates to ensure consumers have access to the information they need to make informed decisions about the foods they eat. These changes include increasing the type size for “Calories,” “servings per container,” and the “Serving size” declaration, and bolding the number of calories and the “Serving size” declaration to highlight this information.
Yeah, when so many people are making the same errors, maybe it's time for a change? I mean, I've bemoaned the fate of humanity pretty often recently, but I'm still going to try and give people as a whole a little bit of credit here. Theoretically, all or most of us posting here are or were overweight, which I'm guessing means that all or most of us at some point in time were making what now seem like really absurd (or as the gamers say, noob) choices when it comes to portion size.2 -
ill say the worst is like cinnamon buns or squares from the store, Serving size is half a bar? why the *kitten* you cut the bar to be 2 servings then. oh my gosh0
-
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
I get what you're saying but the people self-reporting lie. A serving size of Doritos is something like 13 chips. Who in the world only eats 13 Doritos at a sitting? It's impossible.
Not impossible. I sometimes buy the big bags and measure them out into single servings for lunches and snacks. Cheaper that way. Granted when I do that at home, I usually weigh instead of count, but when I am at a party, I do count them.2 -
The_Enginerd wrote: »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...?
↑ this. (unless the original post was missing a decimal point, and OP meant "2.5").
And I'm pretty sure most people realize the serving size on a breath mint is 1 mint.3 -
When hubby and I got serious with our dietary training, we spent weeks pulling packages off the shelf and lining them up to compare the nutrition label. We were surprised many, many times.
Yup, a cereal marked "high in xxx" may be higher than their regular product, but still inferior to other cereals. And even more importantly, no "high protein cereal" is going to beat out steak.0 -
I was born in 1978 and remember when today's nutritional labels came out. I was too young to pay attention to calories or nutrition, but I seem to remember that there either wasn't a label at all or the weren't standardized or something. Anyway, what we have now is a million times better than what I remember that we used to have.
Please keep in mind that I'm not calling the OP or anyone else names here, I'm just relaying a common programming maxim: every time you think your program is idiot proof a bigger idiot will come along and prove you wrong.
Redoing the labels again will only help so much.
The data is there. It's not even hard to find. It's up to you to find it and use it. The forums can help educate you, but ultimately it's still up to you to use your common sense.10 -
Why do they not advertise honestly and offer serving sizes that are realistic? No one eats half a can of ravioli. They eat the whole can, but if they label it as half a serving they can advertise it as 220 calories. Advertising as all natural and healthy when something has added sugars and tons of fillers. I shouldn't have to read every ingredient on every product ever when I am shopping to make sure they aren't lying. The serving sizes need to at least be standardized and companies should not be able to advertise "All Natural Apple Juice" in big letters with Flavored Drink in small letters and a tiny little print on the back that says "contains no fruit juice". You really think that is being honest, and that they don't know they can trick people into thinking it is healthy? I am educated and know what to look for, but tons of people are not so I can see why it is hard for many to lose weight.
um..lots of people only eat 1/2 the can of ravioli. The whole can won't even fit in a normal sized bowl without almost spilling over. And, typical-sized canned foods are more often than not '3.5 servings'.3 -
Nothing in life is free. I found out the hard way (and from a nutritionist) that if it says “fat free” - that means “we added a lot more sugar and salt to make up for no fat”. Or if it says “Sugar free” - that means “we added a gallon of lard and a salt lick to make up for the loss of sugar”.
My own mother didn’t believe me until my brother showed her the nutrition label of her beloved “fat free ice cream sandwiches” had a ton of sugar in it, and that she’d be better off eating the regular version.
You really need to pay attention to those labels. Even on one of the episodes of the Biggest Loser, they went to the grocery and were talking about salads and salad dressings. Particularly that people were using so much dressing that they should have just ordered the bacon cheeseburger they wanted because the calories they used in the dressing were more than the cheeseburger.
And yes, you be bloated to high heaven too, if you aren’t drinking enough water too.
You can find most labels online. I remember my brother being on (and still is) the “not having high fructose corn syrup” thing. (Not that I’m all “can’t have that” with all the different things - if you go by “if you eat that, it’ll kill ya” philosophy, that pretty much encompasses all food.). SO - I looked at some of the snack foods I was having the most of - pretzels. I don’t know if they still do - but at that time, ROld Gold had that in their pretzels. So, I looked for pretzels that didn’t. Snyders of Hanover = Flour, salt, yeast, water. WINNER. AND I think now they’re No GMO. I actually like them better too.
Just start your conversions slowly by whatever you eat most of - see if there are changes you can make that won’t derail you.
Good luck!!3 -
I don't think people are overweight because they're confused by food labels. I think they're overweight because they're going to eat what they want and don't care.
Something nebulous like "serving size" only matters in context if you're watching what you eat in the first place. The majority of overweight people aren't accidentally overweight because of watching what they eat all the time and being misled left, right, and center by labels.
Let's face it, if these hypothetical people were watching what they ate, they'd be making better food choices the majority of the time. The occasional snack food label mishap isn't to blame for the obesity crisis.
The obese and overweight don't really care about portion size unless they're trying to do something about being obese/overweight. Otherwise? They just want however much of a certain food "hits the spot". If you have a smaller package size, they'd just buy two.15
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 426 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