Argh! misleading nutrition labels
alltheweigh170
Posts: 287 Member
So I picked up an individual bottle of mango drink (14 oz) and quickly glanced through the nutrition and saw that it was not bad. Got excited and drank the whole thing. Was entering it in MFP and the numbers didn't match. Compared it to the bottle and what do you know...it is 2 servings! Why do they label individual meals/drinks as multiple servings. Now I have to be careful and skip my afternoon snack. 
0
Replies
-
So they can advertise X grams of sugar or calories or whatever per serving. Or perhaps so they can label something 0 grams of something per serving by making the amount less than .5 g per serving (common with trans fats).0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So they can advertise X grams of sugar or calories or whatever per serving. Or perhaps so they can label something 0 grams of something per serving by making the amount less than .5 g per serving (common with trans fats).
Yep, this. It's super annoying. If I was ever in some kind of political office these policies are something I would want to reform... but the majority of people don't care about that kind of thing anyway, so no one would vote for me with that platform
0 -
One of my pet peeves. Take Ramen - one package is 2 servings. Okay, a brick of ramen can be split into two easily enough as it's usually folded over, but what about the flavor packet?
I can do the math in my head quickly enough though, so it's a minor complaint for me.
What really gets me are the cans of soup that no one in their right mind would ever split into multiple servings (unless it was supposed to be a tiny appetizer). One can = 2.65 servings. Really?! We need to take this to the hundredths place? I'm well-practiced at reading nutrition labels, but I can see that sort of issue really tripping someone up if they miss it.0 -
At least I believe they will stop doing that soon. My advice though is to stop drinking your calories.. just not worth it (except a treat herw and then).0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So they can advertise X grams of sugar or calories or whatever per serving. Or perhaps so they can label something 0 grams of something per serving by making the amount less than .5 g per serving (common with trans fats).
Yep, this. It's super annoying. If I was ever in some kind of political office these policies are something I would want to reform... but the majority of people don't care about that kind of thing anyway, so no one would vote for me with that platform
The White House and FDA Announce Proposed Updates to Nutrition Facts Label
... First Lady Michelle Obama joined Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg at the White House to announce proposed revisions to the Nutrition Facts label, which has been significantly updated only once since its initial release twenty years ago.
...The proposed updates are intended to reflect the latest scientific information about the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The proposed label would also replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with the amount consumers actually eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.
Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/27/white-house-and-fda-announce-proposed-updates-nutrition-facts-label0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So they can advertise X grams of sugar or calories or whatever per serving. Or perhaps so they can label something 0 grams of something per serving by making the amount less than .5 g per serving (common with trans fats).
Yep, this. It's super annoying. If I was ever in some kind of political office these policies are something I would want to reform... but the majority of people don't care about that kind of thing anyway, so no one would vote for me with that platform
The White House and FDA Announce Proposed Updates to Nutrition Facts Label
... First Lady Michelle Obama joined Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg at the White House to announce proposed revisions to the Nutrition Facts label, which has been significantly updated only once since its initial release twenty years ago.
...The proposed updates are intended to reflect the latest scientific information about the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The proposed label would also replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with the amount consumers actually eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.
Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/27/white-house-and-fda-announce-proposed-updates-nutrition-facts-label
HECK YES! My girl Michelle
Thanks for sharing!
0 -
Come on America, join the metric world, you can do it.
0 -
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And beer!0 -
Hey, look at it this way, you are one of the small percentages of humans on this earth who understands how to read a nutrition label.0
-
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And beer!
And coffee with lots of creamer!0 -
ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And beer!
Especially now. Fall seasonal beers are definitely worth it.0 -
Yeah I know... I guess some people really like their drinks, lol.0
-
I found this with my favourite lychee drink! I thought it was a decent amount of calories, but the calorie amount given was for 250ml when the bottle is 500ml 0
-
My favourite lentil crisps are like this. The nutrition is for a 28g serving yet the full bag is 39g 0
-
Need2Exerc1se wrote: »ceoverturf wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »
And beer!
Especially now. Fall seasonal beers are definitely worth it.
Fact!0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »So they can advertise X grams of sugar or calories or whatever per serving. Or perhaps so they can label something 0 grams of something per serving by making the amount less than .5 g per serving (common with trans fats).
Yep, this. It's super annoying. If I was ever in some kind of political office these policies are something I would want to reform... but the majority of people don't care about that kind of thing anyway, so no one would vote for me with that platform
The White House and FDA Announce Proposed Updates to Nutrition Facts Label
... First Lady Michelle Obama joined Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius and FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg at the White House to announce proposed revisions to the Nutrition Facts label, which has been significantly updated only once since its initial release twenty years ago.
...The proposed updates are intended to reflect the latest scientific information about the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The proposed label would also replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with the amount consumers actually eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.
Read more: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/02/27/white-house-and-fda-announce-proposed-updates-nutrition-facts-label
Excellent!0 -
Stouffer's Mac & Cheese: a gal I work with used to eat an entire package (until I pointed out....it's 2 servings).0
-
andrikosDE wrote: »Come on America, join the metric world, you can do it.
How would metrics change the fact that they are counting an individual sized bottle as two servings?
0 -
I think our labels are ok, as they all give the data per 100g. I was reading today how much bigger our portions have got though! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-342461190
-
It's funny since the old serving sizes are mandated by law for the most part too, based on the amount that's supposedly proper to eat. I get the argument for both, although by bottle for a drink is clearer especially if someone reads it carelessly.0
-
Pop tarts are my nemesis. I even knew when I bought them that a serving is one pop tart and has 200 calories, but who the hell eats one pop tart, and why must they package them in pairs in a non-resealable sleeve?
NSV: I actually had one pop tart with my coffee today. The other is still at home in a ziplock bag.
0 -
I don't understand why everyone throws such a fit over a can of soup being listed at having two servings. Growing up, my family always split a can of soup between at least two people. Sometimes three. I still always split a can with someone else when I eat soup.
That said, we always had something with the soup, like a salad or half sandwich or something. My parents always said that a can of soup had too much sodium for one person, so it was better if you shared it with someone else and ate something less salty with it. Maybe everyone else is just only eating soup, and nothing else? I don't know. This argument just confuses me.
Edit: Same deal with poptarts. Growing up in my famil, you were a pig if you are both poptarts in the foil pack. We always ate one and either gave the other to someone else or put it in a sandwich bag for later.0 -
Strawblackcat wrote: »I still always split a can with someone else when I eat soup.
Am I the only one who just pictured someone hanging out with a friend in the club like "hey girl...wanna split a can of soup?"
0 -
My biggest pet peeve with serving sizes is with cereal. It drives me up the wall that every cereal is basically 3/4 cup serving size. It's a ridiculous expectation.0
-
that's not misleading...they say 2 servings on the label...you just need to learn to read nutritional labels and pay attention.0
-
abetterluke wrote: »My biggest pet peeve with serving sizes is with cereal. It drives me up the wall that every cereal is basically 3/4 cup serving size. It's a ridiculous expectation.
I don't care for cold cereal, but oatmeal is like 44 g dry, and that seems perfect for me. I also find the serving sizes for pasta and rice quite reasonable.
The problem with listing larger sizes because the US has proportion distortion and people eat too much on average (given the total calories consumed on average), is that people who read labels get their idea of what is a normal serving in part from what is listed. That's why the current situation has federal regs governing how big a serving that is listed can be based on what's supposed to be a normal serving.
I don't think it's too hard for people to see how many servings are in a container. I've always checked that when I was bothering to read labels.
I do think it's misleading if a sandwich or cookie is sold as "2 servings," but I haven't seen that and I suspect restaurants aren't permitted to do that. (Pret does sell their dressings in 2 serving packets, which is annoying, but not as annoying as wasting the calories on those dressings to start.)0 -
andrikosDE wrote: »Come on America, join the metric world, you can do it.
I love metric, but it'll take me a while to get used to telling people that 14,651 kJ = 1 pound of fat.
Osric0 -
OsricTheKnight wrote: »andrikosDE wrote: »Come on America, join the metric world, you can do it.
I love metric, but it'll take me a while to get used to telling people that 14,651 kJ = 1 pound of fat.
Osric
0 -
I've been buying a prepared manicotti from Costco. According to the label, there are 7 servings in the package. There are 5 manicotti in the package. I guess I'm supposed to eat 5/7 of a manicotti and serve someone else the stubs.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions