FDA to Change Serving Sizes

Options
24

Replies

  • tat2cookie
    tat2cookie Posts: 1,902 Member
    Options
    Don't get me started on what I think of the FDA. But the serving sizes will be interesting. It's already weird to see how they decide serving sizes. Can of tuna fish has 2.5 servings, one of those crappy cardboard pizzas serves 16! Most people just look at the calories and not the serving size and that is what most food companies bank on. So now, like previously used, ice cream, a customer sees 200 cal per serving, oh ok that's not so bad. If this going into affect they will see 800 cal per serving and there will now be rivers of tears in the frozen food section. It will be interesting to say the least.
  • barbecuesauce
    barbecuesauce Posts: 1,779 Member
    Options
    I'm not sure it's actually going to affect behavior (but I still hope they study whether it does). If you read labels, it's not going to affect the way you eat (unless you're just really terrible at math and can't figure .5 servings), and if you don't, you're already eating muffins and ice cream in those quantities.

    And those of us on MFP are going to keep eating 19 gram servings of peanut butter.
  • jessicalranallo
    Options
    I think it is good because so many people see the calories and think good but don't look at what a serving size is and how many servings per container. I also think it might make companies look at how unhealthy the crap they are serving really is when they have to say 300 calories for a 1cup serving of ice cream instead of a 150 calorie 1/2 cup serving. Or 450 calories for a small bag of chips. We have already seen beverage companies do something similar with 20oz sodas where now it gives you how much is in the whole container and how much is a serving so you can see both and know what you are really consuming. In the end, people who want to eat healthy will still get the info they need on the packaging and maybe those that 'think' they are eating healthy will get a wake-up call when they see just how much their 'serving' really costs them in calories/fat/carbs/etc
  • ashleycde
    ashleycde Posts: 622 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    I am definitely glad that they are changing the serving size to properly reflect the expectation of whatever item it is, like the muffin example. Ramen is another example. No one is eating half the block and half the seasoning.

    No one.

    Exactly. Even broke college kids can afford to eat a whole package of ramen and not split it with a friend. I hope.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,446 Member
    Options
    It's good for people to have a realistic heads up. The disconnect between what's on the package and what people eat doesn't help them.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    If you read labels, it's not going to affect the way you eat (unless you're just really terrible at math and can't figure .5 servings), and if you don't, you're already eating muffins and ice cream in those quantities.

    Unless someone is preparing their own food regularly, there is a very good chance they have no idea how much (little!) "half a cup" really is. IMO serving sizes on labels should reflect a typical eating pattern - the ramen example is perfect.

    And a tub of Ben & Jerrys...in the real world, most of the time, that is at most two servings.


  • Daiako
    Daiako Posts: 12,545 Member
    Options
    Seems like a good idea to me. Serving size arbitrarily reflected eating habits of people in the 80's, as opposed to actually being based on something meaningful, so why shouldn't they now be based on eating habits of the majority of people today?

    It won't change anything for me. A serving of tuna will still be a whole can. A serving of chicken will still be 8-10 ounces. /shrug
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    I like the changes. I'm sure some of us have been burned looking at calories then realizing too late that it was only for 1/2 the package or something.

    The database is going to be a huge mess though, I'm dreading it.
  • SilverRose89
    SilverRose89 Posts: 447 Member
    Options
    It's a good idea. My annoyance is cereal. 30g just is not what most people will pour into a bowl when they want some cereal. I know that was the one I was shocked at when I realised how small a 'serving' is.

    This won't make people eat more, IMO. The people who already choose to eat 30g of cereal will continue, but it might actually mean calories per serving accurately reflect what people see a serving as, which can only be a good thing.
  • Kalici
    Kalici Posts: 685 Member
    Options
    It's a good idea. My annoyance is cereal. 30g just is not what most people will pour into a bowl when they want some cereal. I know that was the one I was shocked at when I realised how small a 'serving' is.

    I had a hysterical laughing fit the first time I weighed out cereal. I don't eat it anymore, it isn't worth it in my opinion.

  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    Yeah I don't see how it would make people eat more. They already eat what they want, probably without looking at the label. If anything, if they do look at the label, they'll realize the food has more calories than they thought.
  • kuranda10
    kuranda10 Posts: 593 Member
    Options
    They need to change the label to the way they do it in Europe and Australia.

    It gives the servings size, but then also give the 100g or 100ml information. that way you can truly compare products since each company will have different serving sizes.

    http://www.awash.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/understanding-food-label.gif
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    kuranda10 wrote: »
    They need to change the label to the way they do it in Europe and Australia.

    It gives the servings size, but then also give the 100g or 100ml information. that way you can truly compare products since each company will have different serving sizes.

    http://www.awash.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/understanding-food-label.gif

    Yep, agreed, it would be much easier.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    Francl27 wrote: »
    I like the changes. I'm sure some of us have been burned looking at calories then realizing too late that it was only for 1/2 the package or something.

    The database is going to be a huge mess though, I'm dreading it.

    the database is already a huge mess….
  • softblondechick
    softblondechick Posts: 1,276 Member
    Options
    It was eye opening for me to look at the Canadian food recommendations, like half the food portions or less! Check it out.

    5.5 Oz of meat a day is the recommendation. Sorry I can't paste link w/ my phone.


  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    It was eye opening for me to look at the Canadian food recommendations, like half the food portions or less! Check it out.

    5.5 Oz of meat a day is the recommendation. Sorry I can't paste link w/ my phone.


    That's... scary.
  • ndj1979
    ndj1979 Posts: 29,139 Member
    Options
    simple solution …weight all your solids and as many liquids as you can ...
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    shyn52 wrote: »
    Thanks for the comments. Good points on items that are packaged as single servings - I do think that people assume they should eat the whole thing so calories should reflect that. But I did assume that a serving size was a recommended amount. My bet is that this change will increase consumption if you aren't tracking calories.

    You do realize that most people don't read labels in the first place right?

    As for myself, I don't let a package dictate a serving or a portion for me...for me, that information just helps me with the math...my serving or portion is my serving or portion and it is commensurate with my calorie targets.

    I don't know anyone other than myself and my super anal fitness buddies who actually read labels and measure and weigh stuff out...most people just don't.
  • JPW1990
    JPW1990 Posts: 2,424 Member
    Options
    kuranda10 wrote: »
    They need to change the label to the way they do it in Europe and Australia.

    It gives the servings size, but then also give the 100g or 100ml information. that way you can truly compare products since each company will have different serving sizes.

    http://www.awash.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/understanding-food-label.gif

    They list fiber separately, too, which I wish they would do here.
  • AmazonMayan
    AmazonMayan Posts: 1,168 Member
    Options
    It's a good idea. My annoyance is cereal. 30g just is not what most people will pour into a bowl when they want some cereal. I know that was the one I was shocked at when I realised how small a 'serving' is.

    This won't make people eat more, IMO. The people who already choose to eat 30g of cereal will continue, but it might actually mean calories per serving accurately reflect what people see a serving as, which can only be a good thing.

    Now that I weigh and log foods, I sometimes use cereal as a breakfast "side" to go along with my eggs and meat. Sometimes it's a snack later in the day. It's never a meal anymore.

    I do use a cereal that is 59g (approx. 1 1/4 c.) a serving but it is 200 calories before milk lol. Shredded wheat n bran...add 50g of blueberries and yum. I like how they put a more (still small) realistic serving size and the calories to go with it. I don't feel quite as sad when I eat it LOL.