Wish Food Labels Weren't So Scammy!
Options
Replies
-
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions