FDA redesigns nutrition panel

Options
1234689

Replies

  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    I have to be honest and say that I think making serving sizes of foods bigger is really awful news for people like me who already read labels and eat actual serving sizes. Instead of teaching people to measure what they eat and eat moderate portions, this will just justify the larger portions many people already eat and make it harder for the rest of us to track the calories of smaller portions, since now we'll be the ones having to do unnecessary math to count the calories for smaller/more moderate portions of food. :/

    I guess it kind of depends. It does seem like sometimes they make the serving size unrealistically low so the calorie number seems smaller. But you make a good point. An example: I eat Fig Newtons when I want a cookie. Serving size is 2 cookies. For "old me" that was unrealistically small. "New me" actually eats two because that's what they have on the package and the calorie count fits my goal. So you may have a good point.

    I would like it if there was a way to make serving size the same for different brands of a given product to make comparison easier.
  • AlongCame_Molly
    AlongCame_Molly Posts: 2,835 Member
    Options
    I like it!
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    Could you try to pre-plan the cereal you are getting? Research the types you'd like to consider getting and be familiar with that before you actually go shop?

    If that's your line of thinking, then why even have nutritional information listed on the packaging if I have to look it all up before I go to the grocery store? Seems to defeat the purpose! Anyway, more than that I just think it's sad that the solution the government is taking is to adjust labels to reflect the majority's poor eating habits rather than trying to adjust the poor eating habits to improve people's health. We obviously have very different opinions, so that's my last word on the subject!

    Okay. I'm not sure how that would defeat the purpose. When I go shopping, i have an idea of what I want and certain items I tend to get repeatedly. I don't see how figuring out the nutritional value of certain items prior to actually getting the item would some how negate actually, well, getting the item. :huh:
  • somefitsomefat
    somefitsomefat Posts: 445 Member
    Options
    Not sure if it's been mentioned, but I read that the serving size/servings per container on some items will be revamped too to reflect more realistic portions. For instance, a 20oz Coke would list the serving size as the entire bottle rather than splitting it up in to two servings.
  • CallMeCupcakeDammit
    CallMeCupcakeDammit Posts: 9,375 Member
    Options
    "The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler."

    source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/health/nutrition-labels-changes/

    YESSS

    That makes sense. A bottle of chocolate milk is 2 servings, and there ain't no way I'm stopping half way. I like the new labels.
  • fast_eddie_72
    fast_eddie_72 Posts: 719 Member
    Options
    Could you try to pre-plan the cereal you are getting? Research the types you'd like to consider getting and be familiar with that before you actually go shop?

    If that's your line of thinking, then why even have nutritional information listed on the packaging if I have to look it all up before I go to the grocery store? Seems to defeat the purpose! Anyway, more than that I just think it's sad that the solution the government is taking is to adjust labels to reflect the majority's poor eating habits rather than trying to adjust the poor eating habits to improve people's health. We obviously have very different opinions, so that's my last word on the subject!

    Okay. I'm not sure how that would defeat the purpose. When I go shopping, i have an idea of what I want and certain items I tend to get repeatedly. I don't see how figuring out the nutritional value of certain items prior to actually getting the item would some how negate actually, well, getting the item. :huh:

    Well. I mean. Why have a label at all then? Not poking, just asking. If you're going to put the label on it, might as well be as useful as possible. If you have to research before hand, kind of defeats the purpose.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    Not sure if it's been mentioned, but I read that the serving size/servings per container on some items will be revamped too to reflect more realistic portions. For instance, a 20oz Coke would list the serving size as the entire bottle rather than splitting it up in to two servings.

    I just noticed on my bottle of Diet Dr. Pepper, the serving size is the whole bottle. However, my buddy's bottle of regular Coke lists 2.5 servings. I assume it's because one has calories and the other doesn't. Interesting...
  • WendyTerry420
    WendyTerry420 Posts: 13,274 Member
    Options
    Don't they have better things to regulate, like GMO foods and Monsanto?

    Regulate? You mean institute protections for so that more family farms can get pushed into bankruptcy?

    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor)
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    Could you try to pre-plan the cereal you are getting? Research the types you'd like to consider getting and be familiar with that before you actually go shop?

    If that's your line of thinking, then why even have nutritional information listed on the packaging if I have to look it all up before I go to the grocery store? Seems to defeat the purpose! Anyway, more than that I just think it's sad that the solution the government is taking is to adjust labels to reflect the majority's poor eating habits rather than trying to adjust the poor eating habits to improve people's health. We obviously have very different opinions, so that's my last word on the subject!

    Okay. I'm not sure how that would defeat the purpose. When I go shopping, i have an idea of what I want and certain items I tend to get repeatedly. I don't see how figuring out the nutritional value of certain items prior to actually getting the item would some how negate actually, well, getting the item. :huh:

    Well. I mean. Why have a label at all then? Not poking, just asking. If you're going to put the label on it, might as well be as useful as possible. If you have to research before hand, kind of defeats the purpose.

    Because in order to be able to know what the nutrition is, you still need the label. That's what many sites and even the product website themselves tend to use to relay the nutrition info. And I'm not saying you won't see something new on the shelf and go "ooooo, what's that."

    I'm saying if you know you have a tendency to be confused about a certain product (like cereal), then here's something to try since you aren't going to be able to control/stop what the FDA is planning to do.
  • Squamation
    Squamation Posts: 522 Member
    Options
    "The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler."

    source: http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/27/health/nutrition-labels-changes/

    YESSS

    ^^this is awesome and has my full support.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Options
    I don't get this. I'm not American, so please forgive me if it is obvious! But I have to ask, because I've been trying to understand for a long time. Why isn't the focal point values pr 100 grams, wouldn't it make comparing different items easier? The serving size is what the user - or, the manufacturer - decides, or is it standardized in any way? And how do you use the %DV numbers, not that everybody is on a 2000 calories diet at all time...?
  • MissingMinnesota
    MissingMinnesota Posts: 7,486 Member
    Options
    Anyone else notice they state the serving size twice?
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    I don't get this. I'm not American, so please forgive me if it is obvious! But I have to ask, because I've been trying to understand for a long time. Why isn't the focal point values pr 100 grams, wouldn't it make comparing different items easier? The serving size is what the user - or, the manufacturer - decides, or is it standardized in any way? And how do you use the %DV numbers, not that everybody is on a 2000 calories diet at all time...?

    Honestly, I don't pay any attention to the DV%. My focus is on the grams, especially for macros. I'm just glad that many companies add in the weight measurement along with the cup/tablespoon measurements. Not all do and that sucks.
  • piejin
    piejin Posts: 41 Member
    Options
    I don't get this. I'm not American, so please forgive me if it is obvious! But I have to ask, because I've been trying to understand for a long time. Why isn't the focal point values pr 100 grams, wouldn't it make comparing different items easier? The serving size is what the user - or, the manufacturer - decides, or is it standardized in any way? And how do you use the %DV numbers, not that everybody is on a 2000 calories diet at all time...?

    The simple answer is... for no good reason! I WISH they just did things per 100 grams so it'd make everything easy, but we have a weird phobia of the metric system here. :ohwell:
  • morefit_bec
    morefit_bec Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    Whenever I look at Nutrition labels, I think back to a Food Science competition I did back in middle school. They gave us the nutrition information for a ton of different pizza toppings, so we had to design a pizza and market it, including all the nutrition information. I was manning the design and the nutrition information sheet, so I saved the nutrition information for last. My teammates decided to make it an "everything" pizza, and I didn't think to check the nutrition of it until the last 5 minutes of the competition. Sure enough, the calorie count for our pizza was absolutely insane and we didn't have time to change everything. As a last ditch effort, I changed the serving size to be about 1/100 so the label wouldn't look as insanely unhealthy as it was.

    I thought we did horrible since our pizza was so crazily unhealthy. But apparently the judges liked the serving size manipulation because we ended up winning 1st place. I bet if we had to more prominently display those serving sizes like these new labels, we wouldn't have even made top 5. :P Ever since that competition, I've paid close attention to number of servings/serving sizes.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    I don't get this. I'm not American, so please forgive me if it is obvious! But I have to ask, because I've been trying to understand for a long time. Why isn't the focal point values pr 100 grams, wouldn't it make comparing different items easier? The serving size is what the user - or, the manufacturer - decides, or is it standardized in any way? And how do you use the %DV numbers, not that everybody is on a 2000 calories diet at all time...?

    The simple answer is... for no good reason! I WISH they just did things per 100 grams so it'd make everything easy, but we have a weird phobia of the metric system here. :ohwell:

    I wish they did too. I especially hate when cereals are different serving sizes on different boxes.
  • Holly_Roman_Empire
    Holly_Roman_Empire Posts: 4,440 Member
    Options
    Anyone else notice they state the serving size twice?

    Bahahaha, nice catch! I guess "Amount per Serving" wasn't sufficient. Must explain in idiot-proof terms that the calories listed is not for the whole container! :laugh:
  • grimm1974
    grimm1974 Posts: 337 Member
    Options
    Too bad you have an option on food like you do for some computer programs when you delete something. Like right before you open a tub of ice cream, a menu pops up and says "Are you sure you wish to do this (Y/N)"
  • PikaKnight
    PikaKnight Posts: 34,971 Member
    Options
    I don't get this. I'm not American, so please forgive me if it is obvious! But I have to ask, because I've been trying to understand for a long time. Why isn't the focal point values pr 100 grams, wouldn't it make comparing different items easier? The serving size is what the user - or, the manufacturer - decides, or is it standardized in any way? And how do you use the %DV numbers, not that everybody is on a 2000 calories diet at all time...?

    The simple answer is... for no good reason! I WISH they just did things per 100 grams so it'd make everything easy, but we have a weird phobia of the metric system here. :ohwell:

    That's true :laugh: I believe we tried it for a week (?) and everyone decided to do the:

    Oh-noes-everybody-panic.gif

    so the government was like, "Alright guys. Stop freaking out. We're going back to the old way of doing things. Let's just pretend this NEVER happened."

    :laugh:
  • kgeyser
    kgeyser Posts: 22,505 Member
    Options
    I don't get this. I'm not American, so please forgive me if it is obvious! But I have to ask, because I've been trying to understand for a long time. Why isn't the focal point values pr 100 grams, wouldn't it make comparing different items easier? The serving size is what the user - or, the manufacturer - decides, or is it standardized in any way? And how do you use the %DV numbers, not that everybody is on a 2000 calories diet at all time...?

    The simple answer is... for no good reason! I WISH they just did things per 100 grams so it'd make everything easy, but we have a weird phobia of the metric system here. :ohwell:

    I wish they did too. I especially hate when cereals are different serving sizes on different boxes.

    The different serving sizes on the same product irritates me to no end. 100g would make everything so much easier. And the DV% are completely worthless, a pie chart with carbs, fats, protein, fiber, and sugar for the sugar phobics would be much more beneficial.

Categories