FDA redesigns nutrition panel

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.

What? Did I miss something? I'm going by the talk of labels so not sure where that came from. 2/3 cup is still 2/3 cup on both labels. Not sure what is becoming "bigger" except the label part where the servings and calories are stated.

What? Did I miss something? I'm going by the talk of labels so not sure where that came from. 2/3 cup is still 2/3 cup on both labels. Not sure what is becoming "bigger" except the label part where the servings and calories are stated.

You did miss something! From an LA Times article (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nutrition-labels-20140227,0,1274002.story#axzz2uYUZy8tZ):

"The FDA proposal would also revise serving sizes to reflect the most recent data on consumer habits. The serving size for soda is currently 8 ounces, but consumers often drink soda in 12-ounce cans or even larger bottles.
The current rules allow manufacturers to use a larger serving size, as some soda makers do, but the proposed rule would require the serving size to be at least 12 ounces.
With the update, the serving sizes set in 1994 would increase for some products, such as ice cream, while sizes for other products, such as yogurt, would decrease.
"The serving sizes for many foods are a joke now — the half-cup of ice cream, 2-ounce muffins and bagels, which haven't been seen in decades," said Jacobson, praising proposed revisions."

Hmmm. I don't really see the issue. But I tend to weigh my food which allows me to enter per gram/ounce.

I guess it'd be a pain if you were still going by measuring cups. But I think that you can easily enter fractions (versus decimals) of the servings...so again, I don't think it'll really be an issue or that much of a pain.

Yes definitely need the calories for the whole box.

And no more of the 2 servings for pop tarts or soda bottles nonsense.

And I agree that the design looks very non professional and messy.

With all the potassium and Vit D deficiencies now that will be a big benefit!

Don't they have better things to regulate, like GMO foods and Monsanto?

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.

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:

"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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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:

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:



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: