New U.S. nutrition facts labeling

Options
apullum
apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
in Food and Nutrition
The US has new nutrition label requirements, so many folks will be seeing different labels soon if you haven't already seen them: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/fda-brief/fda-brief-fda-provides-additional-information-about-requirements-dual-column-labeling-serving-sizes

Personally, I am a big fan of the new labels. I like seeing the calories/macros of the entire container without having to calculate that myself. That makes it easier for me to decide whether I want to buy something and how I want to portion it out.

What do you think about the new labeling?

Replies

  • whmscll
    whmscll Posts: 2,254 Member
    Options
    Well thank goodness, too many food manufacturers try to hide how many calories are in a food by deciding that a “serving” is some ridiculously small portion of what’s in the package, when most normal people would consider the entire package one serving.
  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Options
    pinuplove wrote: »
    I like these. What I would really like, though, is to see is "per 100g" labeling in the US (for ease of logging purposes). But that'll never happen!

    If only people here could be persuaded to use the metric system! I agree; I'd love to see that too.
  • gemiller87
    gemiller87 Posts: 137 Member
    Options
    I think it's a good change. I really do get tired of going "oh, that's not that bad. oh wait, nevermind; they think there's 4 servings in a single serving snack bar". Being required to show a total package data count adjacent should do a little bit to curb that.
  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Options
    gemiller87 wrote: »
    I think it's a good change. I really do get tired of going "oh, that's not that bad. oh wait, nevermind; they think there's 4 servings in a single serving snack bar". Being required to show a total package data count adjacent should do a little bit to curb that.

    Unfortunately it seems that there's still some wiggle room, since the labeling for the full package is not required if there are more than 3 servings in the package. I don't love that part of the policy, but I think it's a start.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    I like it a lot. I have no complaints about the new labels as they are.
  • puffbrat
    puffbrat Posts: 2,806 Member
    Options
    I think this is great and I'm excited to see it.
    apullum wrote: »
    gemiller87 wrote: »
    I think it's a good change. I really do get tired of going "oh, that's not that bad. oh wait, nevermind; they think there's 4 servings in a single serving snack bar". Being required to show a total package data count adjacent should do a little bit to curb that.

    Unfortunately it seems that there's still some wiggle room, since the labeling for the full package is not required if there are more than 3 servings in the package. I don't love that part of the policy, but I think it's a start.

    This part is disappointing though. I really hope manufacturers don't start changing the serving sizes to be smaller and have more servings in order to wiggle out of this. There are still far too many things that are clearly intended to be single serving but labeled as multiple servings to reduce the calorie shock.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    Serving sizes are broadly set by federal regulations, so they can't just make them super small to avoid the rule.

    Personally, I'm fine with the 3 serving rule, since I don't think it would be especially useful to see the calories in an entire bottle of olive oil or bag of flour or package of rice.
  • apullum
    apullum Posts: 4,838 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Serving sizes are broadly set by federal regulations, so they can't just make them super small to avoid the rule.

    Personally, I'm fine with the 3 serving rule, since I don't think it would be especially useful to see the calories in an entire bottle of olive oil or bag of flour or package of rice.

    I think it’s a minor annoyance if something is labeled as, say, a 4 serving side dish but I want to make a 2 serving meal of it. I can do the math myself; I’d just like it if someone else did it for me :)

    I’ve already used the new label when making a two person meal out of a package of Gardein that was labeled as three servings. I found it easier to divide the package calories by two than to calculate the calories for 1.5 servings, but that depends on how one’s own brain works.
  • Nony_Mouse
    Nony_Mouse Posts: 5,646 Member
    Options
    pinuplove wrote: »
    I like these. What I would really like, though, is to see is "per 100g" labeling in the US (for ease of logging purposes). But that'll never happen!

    Living in a country that does have per 100g on the label, I can't imagine living without it. How are you meant to compare the protein content of different brands of yoghurt with different serving sizes while standing in the supermarket otherwise??

Categories