New Nutrition Labels - Cereal Serving Size

Luke_rabbit

This is really a question for my spouse who doesn't count calories.

The new nutrition labels now reflect "typical" servings rather than servings from a dietician standpoint.

Because of this change, the serving size for cereal has increased.

My question is how much? I can't seem to find an answer via Google.

My husband has always just weighed out what the label said. He doesn't want to eat more than before, but he doesn't know how much to adjust to get back to his old amounts. 80%? 50%? How much have the labels increased? Is it different for every type of cereal?

I rarely eat cereal, so I don't have much insight to offer him.

MichelleWithMoxie

When your husband weighed out his cereal previously, did he write that down or record it anywhere? Maybe he can just reference back to that serving size he’s used before?

Luke_rabbit

MichSmish wrote: »

When your husband weighed out his cereal previously, did he write that down or record it anywhere? Maybe he can just reference back to that serving size he’s used before?

No, he just used what the box told him.

cmriverside

Doesn't he remember how much it was?

I mean I can remember that my ice cream in 2008 was 53g. Now it's 85g on the label. That's 1.60 X 53...or stated another way it's 85 divided by 53.

Which is still not enough ice cream.

Whatever the portion size is in the database on ANY item, you can just divide what you ate by what the serving is in the portion box.

Luke_rabbit

I get that people used to counting calories are finding this hard to imagine.

He literally just looks at the label and weighs that amount into a bowl. He doesn't store the number in his head. He eats probably a dozen different cereals throughout the year and they all have a different number of grams per serving (I assume, since they vary in density).

If the label said 30 grams last month, he put 30 grams in his bowl. If it says 50 grams now, he puts 50 grams in his bowl (all numbers are purely made up).

He doesn't want to eat more just because other people's "typical" serving is higher.

SummerSkier

When I was losing weight I used to have cereal a lot in the mornings. I can tell you that the serving sizes were always from 28 to 31 grams across a fairly wide variety of non sugary type cereals. I also found it very strange when the labels changed which increased the size. If he goes back to the 28-30 grams he will be in the range of the old serving sizes but if he is counting cals he will have to do math to see what they are. I think Special K was the first to make this change in 2018 and it sounds like they have all gone that way. I have switched over to the Low Sugar oatmeal packs and it would be hard for them to adjust those serving sizes... LOL. I have 2.

Theoldguy1

I'd assume he probably eats the same couple of types of cereal most of the time and uses the same style bowl. Why doesn't he just fill the bowl to a level he always has, i.e, eyeball it? It's not exact, but would be close enough for someone not counting calories.

MichelleWithMoxie

Maybe he can try to google it. Google the cereal + “serving size change” or some such phrase, and it might give him some info on how much it increased by, which he can use to figure his usual amount.

cmriverside

bold_rabbit wrote: »

I get that people used to counting calories are finding this hard to imagine.

He literally just looks at the label and weighs that amount into a bowl. He doesn't store the number in his head. He eats probably a dozen different cereals throughout the year and they all have a different number of grams per serving (I assume, since they vary in density).

If the label said 30 grams last month, he put 30 grams in his bowl. If it says 50 grams now, he puts 50 grams in his bowl (all numbers are purely made up).

He doesn't want to eat more just because other people's "typical" serving is higher.

Well, if he can't figure out how to make it work, do you really think we can?

I mean, 30 grams, 50 grams, whatever. If he's not logging food then it doesn't really matter, does it? Eat the serving, go on with the day.


If he starts gaining weight unintentionally, then - he's a big boy -

kshama2001

Looks like the change was from 1 cup to 1.5 C, so whatever that works out to in grams for the particular cereal. However, smaller manufacturers have an additional year to make the change and the FDA is delaying enforcement, so the change may not have occurred on all brands he uses.

https://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/Article/2019/11/05/General-Mills-seizes-Nutrition-Facts-Label-update-as-an-opportunity-to-optimize-cereal-fortification

...The updates include increasing the serving size of ready-to-eat cereal from 1 cup to 1.5 cups for consumers older than 4 years as well as call-outs for different nutrients, updated daily values and a new added sugar line along with several other changes.

These technically go into effect Jan. 1, 2020, for businesses with more than $10m in annual sales. However, last month FDA announced it would exercise enforcement discretion for an additional six months for products that needed the extra time to comply. Smaller businesses have until Jan. 1, 2021, to comply.

Luke_rabbit

SummerSkier wrote: »

When I was losing weight I used to have cereal a lot in the mornings. I can tell you that the serving sizes were always from 28 to 31 grams across a fairly wide variety of non sugary type cereals. I also found it very strange when the labels changed which increased the size. If he goes back to the 28-30 grams he will be in the range of the old serving sizes but if he is counting cals he will have to do math to see what they are. I think Special K was the first to make this change in 2018 and it sounds like they have all gone that way. I have switched over to the Low Sugar oatmeal packs and it would be hard for them to adjust those serving sizes... LOL. I have 2.

Thanks! I will see if this solves the problem. He generally eats generic versions of Cheerios, Shredded Wheat, Bran Flakes, and Grape Nuts. And then a bunch of other ones that I get when the deals are good, like Chex, Life, Kashi, etc.

lemurcat2

Theoldguy1 wrote: »

I'd assume he probably eats the same couple of types of cereal most of the time and uses the same style bowl. Why doesn't he just fill the bowl to a level he always has, i.e, eyeball it? It's not exact, but would be close enough for someone not counting calories.

I really think this makes the most sense. And then take the amount and see how much it is in terms of cups, as most cereals will give a cup measure and grams.

I searched and saw the 1 to 1.5 change that kshama mentioned, but I also checked current packages (on line) and Special K's current measure seems to be 1 cup, while shredded wheat seems to be 1.33 (or in some cases a number of squares).

I hate cold cereal, so no personal knowledge.

This is actually why I think the change based on "what people normally eat" (when we know the average person overeats) is not a good idea, especially since there already are standard serving size measures that have been used in recommendations for daily diet (varying based on total cals, of course). Like your husband, before I counted cals at all I would often look at the serving size. Back in my 20s I ate a rice and beans mix a bunch, and I'd look at the serving size and double it (since the serving size was for it as a side and I was eating it as a main dish). It was about half a package doubled, and the cals seemed reasonable. Similarly, when I ate oats a lot I'd measure out 1/4 cup based on the serving size on the package. Even with something like ice cream, I'd usually have a half cup of ice cream (quarter of a pint) since that was the serving size. Sure, I'd also from time to time eat more (half a pint, even a whole pint), but I was aware I was being indulgent (or eating a silly amount) when, say, eating the whole pint and sometimes 4x the serving to know how many cals. I'm not wild about normalizing larger serving sizes when people already eat too much on average (although I'd also say that we should make our own choices about what serving size makes sense for us when counting).

It's not the same thing in my mind as dividing an obvious single serving package into multiple servings.

amyepdx

I was wondering why the # of servings in my pint of sorbet went from 4 to 3. Either way, I just log it by grams depending on how much I dish out.

BarbaraHelen2013

I agree with Lemurcat...why in the culture of over-eating being the ‘norm’ are government depts encouraging it by shifting the ‘proper’ serving size upwards!?

I’m also hugely cynical because if you look at the associated General Mills website they claim they’re doing it for ‘the good of their customers’ by increasing the benefits of vitamin and mineral fortification.

It also means that the standard box is finished in fewer servings, necessitating repurchase. Profit. 🙄

I’m off to do some research on the effects and intentions of UK cereal manufacturers and government shenanigans! 😂

fitoverfortymom

A serving of Honey nut Cheerios used to be 28g and now it is 37g.

Nony_Mouse

Also questioning how increasing serving sizes is going to help reduce obesity...

OP, could you perhaps check the MFP database to find the old serving sizes?

Luke_rabbit

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

Also questioning how increasing serving sizes is going to help reduce obesity...

OP, could you perhaps check the MFP database to find the old serving sizes?

I had that same thought after posting. Also old images online. He wants to figure them out and make a chart.

SummerSkier

fitoverfortymom wrote: »

A serving of Honey nut Cheerios used to be 28g and now it is 37g.

Nice of them to make the increase some strange fraction eh?

fourtotwentychars

1/3, give or take.

lgfrie

I am a big fan of this change to "what people actually eat" sizes versus old-school portions that were intentionally low-balled so food companies could show "110 calories per serving", which few who weren't mice would consider a meal. Actually I like everything the FDA has been doing with food labeling in recent years, especially the demand that companies put total numbers for the package on the label to the right of the portion-based numbers - forcing these companies to admit that their little package of chocolate chip cookies or chips has 450 calories, not the 165 that they previously listed by absurdly counting the package as 2.75 servings. They've been manipulating the consumer for decades with misleading food labels based on unrealistic and/or fractional portion sizes and it's good that the govt is rectifying that.

That said, anyone tracking calories is on their own recognizance to measure out by the gram and log accordingly. Even with the improved FDA portion sizes, it still comes down to taking out the right amount of food for your appetite and calorie availability and logging it accurately. The only number a serious dieter should need is the nutritional info per gram, or worst case, per ounce for the "divide by 28" two-step.

kimny72

I actually think attempting to increase the serving size closer to what a typical person actually eats is a good thing, as it gives someone who doesn't measure out a serving a more accurate calorie amount when they glance at the package. Cereal is one of those items that is often a shock when you start using a food scale because you thought you were eating one serving but were really eating more. Now that I weigh my portions, I weigh out 1.5 "servings" when I have cereal because I found the suggested serving simply wasn't enough to enjoy.

Trying to tie it to more nutrition is dumb. But for folks who try to mind calories casually, having the bold print calorie number on the box more accurately reflecting what they are eyeballing into their bowl could be helpful.

I doubt there are very many people who will be paying enough attention to the serving size to start serving themselves more but who isn't also paying attention to the calories going up as well and what that means. Those people were most likely already eating more than 3/4 of a cup or whatever the box said anyway and when asked how much a serving of cereal is, would say "a bowl full".

Luke_rabbit

I know that I'm a small person who has never been able to eat a lot in one sitting (although grazing will pile on pounds), but I always ate about a serving of cereal. I thought it was plenty of food with milk and fruit.

I also thought a regular scoop of ice cream was about the right amount. I was actually shocked the first time I heard that some people eat an entire pint of ice cream!

Years ago when we starting weighing certain foods, I frequently found that my normal serving was less than what was on the label - peanut butter, for example.

Nony_Mouse

kimny72 wrote: »

I actually think attempting to increase the serving size closer to what a typical person actually eats is a good thing, as it gives someone who doesn't measure out a serving a more accurate calorie amount when they glance at the package. Cereal is one of those items that is often a shock when you start using a food scale because you thought you were eating one serving but were really eating more. Now that I weigh my portions, I weigh out 1.5 "servings" when I have cereal because I found the suggested serving simply wasn't enough to enjoy.

Trying to tie it to more nutrition is dumb. But for folks who try to mind calories casually, having the bold print calorie number on the box more accurately reflecting what they are eyeballing into their bowl could be helpful.

I doubt there are very many people who will be paying enough attention to the serving size to start serving themselves more but who isn't also paying attention to the calories going up as well and what that means. Those people were most likely already eating more than 3/4 of a cup or whatever the box said anyway and when asked how much a serving of cereal is, would say "a bowl full".

Yeah, fair points

lemurcat2

I don't think most serving sizes were artificially low (they were based on what the gov't calls a serving for nutrition information, which is based on what people used to eat, the idea that servings of staple foods (or even things like ice cream, as well as other dairy) were misleadingly small to trick people is something of a myth, as they were set based on standard servings, again). I think there's been portion distortion and this aggravates it.

People often think of the examples which are confusing -- a large candy bar = 2 servings or a large bag of chips, same, but often those exist because the packaging became larger (there are normal sized bags of chips still, as well as the larger single serve ones). I remember as a kid when they sold half cans of soda and it was normal to drink only half a can (I still do), but now 20 oz is often sold as a single serving.

That said, I do agree that things in single serving packaging need to give the cals for the whole thing, but I'm against increasing the size for certain foods I eat commonly (like pasta or oats or -- although I don't consume it as much anymore -- ice cream). I think it just says to people who don't count cals that the standard or expected serving is a quite large one.

For cold cereal, no real opinion as I don't like it and have no clue how large the old serving would seem to me. I am someone who before counting cals at least started with the serving size given as a sensible amount to eat, although I certainly also had periods where I just eyeballed what seemed good (and would make more pasta than I really wanted and then eat it since it was cooked).

I do get why some disagree and I don't think that's an unreasonable position either (although with portion size creep I wonder where it stops).

lynn_glenmont

Most companies have customer service phone numbers. If you called them, they should be able to tell you what the old serving size was.

Edited to fix typo.

Luke_rabbit

lynn_glenmont wrote: »

Most companies have customer service phone numbers. If you called them, they should be able to tell you what the old serving size was.

Edited to fix typo.

That's a great idea! His standards are all Kroger generics.

ExistingFish

Considering when I eat cereal I always weighed out and logged 1.5 servings, this seems ideal. 1 serving of cinnamon chex was not enough, 2 was too much. 1.5 servings was what I really ate, and that was at my healthy weight and with healthy eating habits fitting it into a balanced diet within a healthy calorie range to maintain my weight.

1.5 "old" servings is probably the more ideal amount for an adult. I don't see this as a bad change. I see it as companies listing the calories for what people actually eat, not some absurdly low number that no one actually eats so they can keep a low number on the front of the box.

SummerSkier

I think what is also interesting is that as companies are changing the serving sizes they are also recalibrating the calorie counts. So it's not really just a math problem. If say 3/4 cup of cheerios (30 oz) was 110 cals before it seems like with the new math or serving size it is not proportional. A prime example. Now being 20 cals off may not seem a lot but to me it just shows how difficult it really is to figure out what our calories in accurately truly are.

The serving sizes changed on this item but the total pint and weight overal container size certainly did not.

paperpudding

wouldnt it be better to enforce the FDA or whoever it is to show calories per 100g (or your imperial equivalent) on everything

Then serving size is irelevant and everyone can work out what they eat by really simple maths

Yes I know that doesnt help OP here and now.