When are food labels going to change? Serving sizes?
Old_Cat_Lady
Posts: 1,193 Member
I remember something about changing serving sizes. Is this going to happen? And if so, when?
I can't wait for a serving of ice cream to be more than 1/2 cup. Or saltines being more than 5 crackers.
I can't wait for a serving of ice cream to be more than 1/2 cup. Or saltines being more than 5 crackers.
0
Replies
-
Maybe they will make a serving of Oreos be a more realistic 10 cookies now.6 -
they don't need to do this (IMO) they just need to change everything to per 100g and leave it at that.
serving sizes only add to confusion, miscalculation, and under-reporting of calories.14 -
This! Ignore serving sizes weigh everything and it all works out beautifully with a list of 100grainbowbow wrote: »they don't need to do this (IMO) they just need to change everything to per 100g and leave it at that.
serving sizes only add to confusion, miscalculation, and under-reporting of calories.
4 -
Why are you anticipating this? I can't imagine it having any impact on my life (ice cream will still have the same amount of calories as it did before, it will just be expressed differently on the package), so I'm curious to know how you feel this will benefit you.8
-
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I remember something about changing serving sizes. Is this going to happen? And if so, when?
I can't wait for a serving of ice cream to be more than 1/2 cup. Or saltines being more than 5 crackers.
Dunno: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-pressure-from-food-companies-fda-delays-changes-to-simplify-calorie-labels-2017-06-13
The .5 cup serving size for ice cream is actually one I don't think should change. I think that's a perfectly reasonable serving size and I don't see the benefit of normalizing portion distortion, but whatever, I realize I'm in the minority here, and I can still eat my .5 cup when I have ice cream.
I think adding a 100 g column would be a nice addition, but given that the current approach seems to be that as is it's too confusing for people to understand (which is not true if you actually bother and care), I don't think they will add anything without removing stuff. The new labels are okay, though, I like them slightly more than the current ones, I think.5 -
I think it was meant as a joke - I got it if it was - how food labels and other regulations are utterly confusing, and by trying to force us to comply, just makes us rebel.1
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I remember something about changing serving sizes. Is this going to happen? And if so, when?
I can't wait for a serving of ice cream to be more than 1/2 cup. Or saltines being more than 5 crackers.
Dunno: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-pressure-from-food-companies-fda-delays-changes-to-simplify-calorie-labels-2017-06-13
The .5 cup serving size for ice cream is actually one I don't think should change. I think that's a perfectly reasonable serving size and I don't see the benefit of normalizing portion distortion, but whatever, I realize I'm in the minority here, and I can still eat my .5 cup when I have ice cream.
.5 cup is about 2 "normal scoops" as in the scoops you'll get if you're at Baskin or Coldstone. So yes!! It's a perfectly reasonable portion size
It's like half a scoop if you jam the scoop halfway in and wedge out half the container.4 -
I like the idea of adding a "per 100g" column, and a lot of international foods I find in the US have it in addition to the suggested serving size. I think it's a good idea to have both, because suggested servings give a visual idea of what you're getting for the calories, whereas the "per 100g" gives you a 1:1 comparison between items.3
-
Thanks for the link. Showed (on a chart) how serving sizes might change.
I thought the sugar changes and serving size changes were completely different things/target dates. Got delayed from this July 2018 to July 2019. I did not know potassium was going to be required. Nice that a 20oz bottle will now be one serving. Who drinks just 8 or 12 oz?
0 -
I love the idea of 100g. Ex: My saltines currently are 14 grams (5 crackers). I could have 35 crackers (100 grams)? That would be about 425 calories. Maybe too much. Oh, I can see this will never become reality.0
-
"Serving size" is for the most part, turned into an artificial construct created by food manufacturers so they could "round down" and report the numbers they wanted to report. What looked all the world to us like an individual bag of potato chips might have said on the label to contain 2.5 servings simply so the numbers on the nutrition label weren't so high per serving. The new rule is trying to get this in hand. It is trying to get the manufacturers to say an individual candy bar that looks like one would eat it at one go is the single serving everyone considers it to be.
The manufacturers don't like this, especially when they must change a number from zero, e.g. "zero transfats per serving" to a higher number. Keeping the servings small meant "rounding down" was legal so something with a little bit of something could be said to have zero of that thing.
One, of course, can choose any size serving and just put in the diary how many "servings" one actually ate. I do this all the time. But having an available serving size is a good suggestion that a universal 100g amount wouldn't provide. With the convention of 56g as a serving of macaroni, I go with 56g per person and we don't feel deprived. If 100g were the lowest size listed on a label, I'd be sorely tempted to do 100g of pasta per person. If the smaller serving size helps me play a mind game that keeps my calories in check, I'm all for it.4 -
For US labeling, the food manufacturers are not the sole determiners of serving size. In fact, the US FDA has a number of criteria on how they have determined the RACC (Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed, or Reference Amounts) requirements for quite an extensive list of food items.
The FDA requires manufacturers to adhere to the Reference Amounts for certain food products - as detailed in the below link at 21 CFR 101.12(b). If an item does not appear in the list, then manufacturers do have some leeway on what they choose as a serving size.
I would disagree with a blanket statement that manufacturers have turned the serving size into an artificial construct.
Even for sugar substitutes, the Reference Amount is required to be "an amount equivalent to one reference amount for sugar in sweetness." That amount per serving is fewer than five Calories and can according to FDA regulations be listed as zero Calories per that serving size.
That is well and good if someone is using a small amount of sugar substitute in place of one teaspoon of sugar. However, when a consumer is expecting to use dozens of servings of sugar substitute per day and expecting there is no Calorie impact, who is to blame? The consumer, the manufacturer, the government?
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2012-title21-vol2/xml/CFR-2012-title21-vol2-sec101-12.xml1 -
Lays chips have started .. only one I've seen1
-
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »Thanks for the link. Showed (on a chart) how serving sizes might change.
I thought the sugar changes and serving size changes were completely different things/target dates. Got delayed from this July 2018 to July 2019. I did not know potassium was going to be required. Nice that a 20oz bottle will now be one serving. Who drinks just 8 or 12 oz?
A can is 12 oz, so many people.
When I was a kid, 12 oz was 2 servings, and I did think of a can of soda as a lot and servings of other beverages tended to be smaller too. (Granted, that was a million years ago, back when soda was a special treat.)3 -
TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I love the idea of 100g. Ex: My saltines currently are 14 grams (5 crackers). I could have 35 crackers (100 grams)? That would be about 425 calories. Maybe too much. Oh, I can see this will never become reality.
The concept is that it would be:
1 serving (14 g or 5 crackers)=X calories; 100 g (about 35 crackers)=425 calories (assuming your numbers are right).
You'd presumably choose to eat however many crackers makes sense to you given calorie needs, how much you like crackers, etc.1 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »"Serving size" is for the most part, turned into an artificial construct created by food manufacturers so they could "round down" and report the numbers they wanted to report. What looked all the world to us like an individual bag of potato chips might have said on the label to contain 2.5 servings simply so the numbers on the nutrition label weren't so high per serving. The new rule is trying to get this in hand. It is trying to get the manufacturers to say an individual candy bar that looks like one would eat it at one go is the single serving everyone considers it to be.
The manufacturers don't like this, especially when they must change a number from zero, e.g. "zero transfats per serving" to a higher number. Keeping the servings small meant "rounding down" was legal so something with a little bit of something could be said to have zero of that thing.
One, of course, can choose any size serving and just put in the diary how many "servings" one actually ate. I do this all the time. But having an available serving size is a good suggestion that a universal 100g amount wouldn't provide. With the convention of 56g as a serving of macaroni, I go with 56g per person and we don't feel deprived. If 100g were the lowest size listed on a label, I'd be sorely tempted to do 100g of pasta per person. If the smaller serving size helps me play a mind game that keeps my calories in check, I'm all for it.
I don't think it would just be 100 g, but 100 g as an addition to a serving size (two columns).
I mean, it's not happening, but that's the usual proposal and what I've seen from other countries.2 -
For US labeling, the food manufacturers are not the sole determiners of serving size. In fact, the US FDA has a number of criteria on how they have determined the RACC (Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed, or Reference Amounts) requirements for quite an extensive list of food items.
The FDA requires manufacturers to adhere to the Reference Amounts for certain food products - as detailed in the below link at 21 CFR 101.12(b). If an item does not appear in the list, then manufacturers do have some leeway on what they choose as a serving size.
I would disagree with a blanket statement that manufacturers have turned the serving size into an artificial construct.
Your critique of my blanket statement is quite apt. Both statements are true within limits. Thank you.
2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »Thanks for the link. Showed (on a chart) how serving sizes might change.
I thought the sugar changes and serving size changes were completely different things/target dates. Got delayed from this July 2018 to July 2019. I did not know potassium was going to be required. Nice that a 20oz bottle will now be one serving. Who drinks just 8 or 12 oz?
A can is 12 oz, so many people.
When I was a kid, 12 oz was 2 servings, and I did think of a can of soda as a lot and servings of other beverages tended to be smaller too. (Granted, that was a million years ago, back when soda was a special treat.)
I agree with you. I rarely drink a 20oz bottle and a 12oz can takes hours to finish and seems like a lot to me.1 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
Maybe they will make a serving of Oreos be a more realistic 10 cookies now.
Thin Mints, servings per box 2 serving size 1 sleeve.5 -
Serving sizes don't bother me hugely (although, I was disappointed @ lenny and larry's complete cookie serving size of half a cookie). I would like essential-9 breakdowns for protein containing foods, though.2
-
rainbowbow wrote: »they don't need to do this (IMO) they just need to change everything to per 100g and leave it at that.
serving sizes only add to confusion, miscalculation, and under-reporting of calories.
Absolutely! I don't even look at serving sizes. I look at grams.3 -
bmitchelmfp wrote: »Serving sizes don't bother me hugely (although, I was disappointed @ lenny and larry's complete cookie serving size of half a cookie). I would like essential-9 breakdowns for protein containing foods, though.
This would irritate me way more than it should. I feel like half a cookie is just wrong and they should just make smaller cookies.5 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I remember something about changing serving sizes. Is this going to happen? And if so, when?
I can't wait for a serving of ice cream to be more than 1/2 cup. Or saltines being more than 5 crackers.
Dunno: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-pressure-from-food-companies-fda-delays-changes-to-simplify-calorie-labels-2017-06-13
Well, that explains the weirdly huge bold font on the calorie, serving size on the Tostitos bag my boyfriend just bought.
Not sure I completely agree with the general portion inflation; I do agree with the change on individual-wrapped type items that are visually presented as a single serving (like a cookie, candy bar, ..) ..although I'm 50/50 on this as it applies to items that have gotten inflated over time (which would include the 20oz soda - many view it as an individual serving despite being a ridiculously high amount, but on the other hand newly bolded and larger print serving sizes might help wake those people up). And on twin packs of snacks?1 -
I've been reading. Other serving size irritants.
Bread - serving 1 slice
Carrs Whole Wheat Crackers - 2 crackers
Cooking Spray - 1/4 second
Hummus - 2 Table spoons - I eat bowl fulls at home when I make it.
Bottled tea - 2 servings / bottle
I think a good point is that Trans Fat would actually show. I can't wait for changes to be made someday. They really need to happen in some products. I hate to wait till 2019.2 -
A serving size that annoys me are the frozen pizzas we get from time-to-time that claim a serving as 1/3 of a pizza. But pizzas are cut into 8 pieces, not 3, and 1/3 doesn't divide evenly into a whole number of pieces.5
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »TheWJordinWJordin wrote: »I remember something about changing serving sizes. Is this going to happen? And if so, when?
I can't wait for a serving of ice cream to be more than 1/2 cup. Or saltines being more than 5 crackers.
Dunno: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/under-pressure-from-food-companies-fda-delays-changes-to-simplify-calorie-labels-2017-06-13
Well, that explains the weirdly huge bold font on the calorie, serving size on the Tostitos bag my boyfriend just bought.
Not sure I completely agree with the general portion inflation; I do agree with the change on individual-wrapped type items that are visually presented as a single serving (like a cookie, candy bar, ..) ..although I'm 50/50 on this as it applies to items that have gotten inflated over time (which would include the 20oz soda - many view it as an individual serving despite being a ridiculously high amount, but on the other hand newly bolded and larger print serving sizes might help wake those people up). And on twin packs of snacks?
For me it depends on the item. I tend to agree that any individual items (like one cookie) should be one serving, as people assume it is, even if it's hugely ridiculously gigantic. A bottle is different to me, as there obviously are bottles that are multiple servings, and I used to buy liter bottles because they were convenient and then drink them for multiple servings, but I have no strong feelings on that. But 4 servings to a pint of ice cream does not seem insane/particularly small to me at all.
I also don't care much about serving size. Back in the day (before I cooked much), I used to often use as a main dish this rice and beans combo and add vegetables and some feta cheese. Because even before I counted calories I always read labels, I knew it was 6 servings, but I'd usually make it into 2 servings (cook the whole pack, eat half, eat the rest the next meal). One serving was 150 calories, so mine was 450, plus whatever I added, which seemed like a very reasonable meal to me, even if it was 3 servings.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »"Serving size" is for the most part, turned into an artificial construct created by food manufacturers so they could "round down" and report the numbers they wanted to report. What looked all the world to us like an individual bag of potato chips might have said on the label to contain 2.5 servings simply so the numbers on the nutrition label weren't so high per serving. The new rule is trying to get this in hand. It is trying to get the manufacturers to say an individual candy bar that looks like one would eat it at one go is the single serving everyone considers it to be.
The manufacturers don't like this, especially when they must change a number from zero, e.g. "zero transfats per serving" to a higher number. Keeping the servings small meant "rounding down" was legal so something with a little bit of something could be said to have zero of that thing.
One, of course, can choose any size serving and just put in the diary how many "servings" one actually ate. I do this all the time. But having an available serving size is a good suggestion that a universal 100g amount wouldn't provide. With the convention of 56g as a serving of macaroni, I go with 56g per person and we don't feel deprived. If 100g were the lowest size listed on a label, I'd be sorely tempted to do 100g of pasta per person. If the smaller serving size helps me play a mind game that keeps my calories in check, I'm all for it.
I don't think it would just be 100 g, but 100 g as an addition to a serving size (two columns).
I mean, it's not happening, but that's the usual proposal and what I've seen from other countries.
In my country we have two things: 1 is calories per 100 grams on the back only. On the front is the total grams of the package along with the total calories in the package.
As far as I'm concerned I'm more than capable of determining how much of something I want to eat. That in and of itself is my 1 serving. I determine how much I want to eat, I look at how many calories that is, and I eat it.
I don't understand the whole "I would eat 100g of something because that's what the package says". That's like eating 6-7 tablespoons of peanut butter as one serving just because that's the package. I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that people don't know how much to eat unless the package has a recommended serving. I don't know maybe that's just me.
Regardless, why on earth would I prefer an inaccurate *kitten* laymans serving size of "about 12 chips" or "1/2 a can" when I could have the actual calories of a serving in grams? Like, I can't even begin to tell you how much easier it is to determine accurate calories when you start using a scale versus these vague *kitten* measurements.
And like so many said above, by having a "serving size" they can use all sortable of tricks like making the serving so small that Nutrition information is misleading. (Spray oil anyone?)
2 -
rainbowbow wrote: »And like so many said above, by having a "serving size" they can use all sortable of tricks like making the serving so small that Nutrition information is misleading. (Spray oil anyone?)
There are limits on their ability to do this. Most serving sizes are pretty standardized (like pasta).
Here's an example of a UK label for bread:
This is something I think would not be useful if it just had 100 g, as people want to know how many calories per slice, not 100 g. They may have no concept of how much bread is in 100 g. (To be clear, I think this label is perfectly helpful.)
Similarly, I don't want to know how many calories are in 100 g of some pasta UNLESS I am weighing it, which most do not do. I want to know how many calories are in the amount I eat (which is why the US 2 oz/half a cup is helpful). A lot of people do have their idea of serving size formed by stuff on the package, and I think that's not a bad thing -- when I started weighing food I couldn't eyeball well, so started measuring out pasta and found that 56 g was perfectly filling (I of course sometimes eat more or less depending on my desire or need, now, but as I was terrible at judging what it would be cooked or knowing how much I really needed to be satisfied, those kinds of external information were helpful for me). Weirdly, I fixed on 100 g as my idea of a sensible serving of potatoes or sweet potatoes, probably because of the round number (again, I eat more or less depending, but that's roughly what I think of as a normal amount for me).
Anyway, yes, if you know what works for you and are weighing foods maybe servings are irrelevant, and there are reasons not to stick to serving size (as with my rice and beans example), but I do think serving size can be helpful.
Mainly, I think it's what provides the most useful information for someone approaching this more casually, but who wants to know enough to read a label. Thus, knowing a pint is 4 servings of ice cream and a serving has 250 cal makes it easier for someone guessing calories than knowing that 100 g is 260 cal, but having no clue what amount makes up 100 g. When I didn't pay attention to calories or weigh anything, I still knew eating a pint of ice cream was about 1000 calories (depending on the ice cream), because I read my labels.
But all this aside, I think the UK double label shown above is a nice idea, and I've seen various versions of that kind of thing. I don't think the US is going to get it any time soon, obviously, but I'd be in favor.4 -
rainbowbow wrote: »As far as I'm concerned I'm more than capable of determining how much of something I want to eat. That in and of itself is my 1 serving. I determine how much I want to eat, I look at how many calories that is, and I eat it.
I don't understand the whole "I would eat 100g of something because that's what the package says". That's like eating 6-7 tablespoons of peanut butter as one serving just because that's the package. I think it's pretty ridiculous to suggest that people don't know how much to eat unless the package has a recommended serving. I don't know maybe that's just me.
People can be pretty surprisingly stupid. and lemming-ish. and would totally do that just because the package said it was a "serving size".rainbowbow wrote: »Regardless, why on earth would I prefer an inaccurate *kitten* laymans serving size of "about 12 chips" or "1/2 a can" when I could have the actual calories of a serving in grams? Like, I can't even begin to tell you how much easier it is to determine accurate calories when you start using a scale versus these vague *kitten* measurements.
Few people weigh food outside of MFP - so those kinds of 'measurements' make sense for the general population. (and the corresponding number of grams is always listed of course).
I would love a double column with 100g entries, but it would be useless to most other people.
This kind of thing is why they are making these changes. (although it is worth noting that since my scale rounds to the nearest gram, I do usually get "0g" of olive oil if using it to (lightly) coat a pan as intended. Spraying on bread, or salad greens, or over fish/veggies is usually ~3g for me).rainbowbow wrote: »And like so many said above, by having a "serving size" they can use all sortable of tricks like making the serving so small that Nutrition information is misleading. (Spray oil anyone?)
--
A lot of default serving sizes for things like meat (and, as noted above, pasta) in the US are simply multiples of ounces, hence the very typical serving sizes of 56g or 112g.
1 -
Here in Australia it is a legal requirement that all food/drink items list their calorie (and other) content in terms of 100gm/100ml - depending if liquid or solid item.
(they can also display per serving if they want to)
So much better system IMO.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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