Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Is this a bit scary and confusing, or have I simply not thought it through?

Options
distinctlybeautiful
distinctlybeautiful Posts: 1,041 Member
in Debate Club
From the MFP blog on updated nutrition labels ...

"On the new label, serving sizes will increase to reflect today’s larger portion sizes –– because, by law, serving sizes must be based on what people are actually consuming, not what they should be consuming."
«134

Replies

  • MissusMoon
    MissusMoon Posts: 1,900 Member
    Options
    I think overall this is probably going to be a helpful thing. If someone is bothering to look at the calories they're going to see the bigger picture via portion.

    Lucky for us here at MFP, we're learning to cut those portions, weigh out those portions and keep it in check.
  • emdeesea
    emdeesea Posts: 1,823 Member
    Options
    emdeesea wrote: »
    Nah. I went to the FDA web site and it's like what I suspected.

    Here's one of the bullet points of the press release:

    **For packages that are between one and two servings, such as a 20 ounce soda, the calories and other nutrients will be required to be labeled as one serving because people typically consume it in one sitting.**

    And this is just an example and makes sense to me. You just continue to follow what's on the label if you want to calorie count. This change is really more for the average general public.

    http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm502182.htm
  • distinctlybeautiful
    distinctlybeautiful Posts: 1,041 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    I guess I'm imagining people using them as a guide for how much they should be eating. The blog gave the example that ice cream will now say the serving size is 2/3 cup instead of 1/2 cup. It's not a huge difference, I know, but it did seem problematic upon first reading. I see y'all's points too though.
  • Char231023
    Char231023 Posts: 702 Member
    Options
    distinctlybeautiful wrote: »
    I guess I'm imagining people using them as a guide for how much they should be eating. The blog gave the example that ice cream will now say the serving size is 2/3 cup instead of 1/2 cup. It's not a huge difference, I know, but it did seem problematic upon first reading. I see y'all's points too though.

    Yeah, but some people are unaware that most calorie counts are per serving instead of the the whole thing. So it might make some people think twice about picking something that a high calories if you want the whole thing.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    Options
    sparklyglitterbomb wrote: »
    I think this will be an eye opening revelation to many. A friend of mine kept grabbing some smoothie drink (Naked?) and the bottle was like 2 or 3 servings. He, not particularly caring about calories, just glanced at the label and thought it was 160 calories or so... not 480 or whatever it is.

    I bought a chocolate bar recently, I was standing in the store to decide between two of them, looked at the nutrition label, scanned for calories, bought the one with fewer of them. Or so I thought. I should have checked the serving size, too. Wound up buying the one with almost twice as many calories. They were about the same size so it was an easy mistake for someone in a hurry.
  • seska422
    seska422 Posts: 3,217 Member
    Options
    I don't think that the change will have much impact on the actual amount eaten out of more-than-one-serving containers. I think most people just get what they get (a portion) and don't pay much attention to what the container thinks should be the amount in a serving. For example, a bowl of cereal will still depend upon the size of the bowls people have rather than what the box says.

    Ignoring the serving size suggestions and eating the portion sizes that I want (be they smaller or larger than the serving sizes on the box) has been one of my favorite things about using a food scale.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited June 2016
    Options
    I prefer it as is (apparently they are going to increase the serving size for ice cream, and .5 cup is an adequate serving). I think that the servings on packages actually did help form my idea of what a sensible serving is, although of course I feel free to eat more or less, and I think normalizing the larger sizes isn't the best idea.

    Back in my early to mid 20s, I used to live on these packaged rice and bean things -- I'd just add vegetables -- and they were something like 150 calories for 6 servings. I'd divide them into three or two servings and eat them for a whole meal (with the veg) as opposed to as a side, and easily did the math to know what I was eating. (I didn't count calories, but I did look at them.)

    But on the whole I don't think it's that big a deal. I do the math now, and will once they change it.
  • Lounmoun
    Lounmoun Posts: 8,426 Member
    Options
    I don't decide how much to eat based on a label. I pre-log my food and decide what fits my goals best.
    I think it is helpful to have realistic portion sizes on the label. I think it will make it easier for people who may not log to know right away how many calories they are eating. They can see it and decide to eat less or eat something else. Less confusing I would think. I'm not sure why it would be anymore scary than it is now.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    The question, though, is what is a realistic portion size. I think US pasta sizes (2 oz) is realistic even if people often eat a lot more, for example.
  • Beverly2Hansen
    Beverly2Hansen Posts: 378 Member
    Options
    OK the real answer is yes we need this change and yes your going to poop your pants when your looking at the actual at a glance calories you mistook when it didn't give you an accurate number for how much you ate. Delusions are nice but the mirror reflects truth.

    This lable thing confused people trying their hardest to eat the right amount for weight control up or down many of those people where depressed when they didn't succeed and unsure of what caused the failure. I'm super bad at math for example and not looking to bring my calculator to the grocery but usually buy small single (or what everyone eats as single serving) items this will really help me.

    As for upping how much you eat show me someone eating less than half a cup of ice cream, most people have trouble not smashing the whole carton. 4oz is still working your restraint over time in my opinion and I aplaud you for your iron will.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Current labels are not confusing or difficult to understand if someone bothers to read them. For example, the rice and beans I mentioned before. 1 serving for 150 and about 6 servings per bag, which is probably a reasonable amount if you eat it as a side (and portion distortion IS related to why people in the US tend to eat too much, IMO--I had a weird idea about pasta portion sizes and yet find eating the current recommended serving is plenty). I never found it difficult to eat 2-3 servings (if as a main dish) and do the math to 300 or 450. Easy-peasy.

    And I nearly always eat a half cup of ice cream, and I think having that in people's minds as a sensible serving size makes sense.

    I don't care that much about the label change -- I think it's a slightly bad idea but will have no meaningful effect on anyone reading labels carefully and with an existing idea of what they should be eating. I just roll my eyes when people pretend like the labels are too confusing and responsible for their own overeating.

Categories