Wish Food Labels Weren't So Scammy!
Options
Replies
-
And they say nurses have it tough... :laugh:3
-
First, the correct info IS on the item. Just look at the nutrition box. The front is advertising.
Second, if everything was sold in single serving packages it would be more expensive and such a horrible waste of resources to use all that extra packaging, just so you don't have to flip that package over and glance at the nutrition box before buying it???
Yep, there are some things that I always assumed were a single serving package that were actually two or even three servings. I fixed that by looking at the nutrition box. And honestly, I rarely look at the ingredient list - I can see calories, protein, and fiber all in that convenient nutrition box.
If it's taking you hours to find healthy food at the store (I hope that was also you exaggerating), then perhaps you have a too narrow idea of "healthy" food. Buying whole foods and cooking can take care of a lot of that, and once you start logging you learn pretty quickly which foods fit into your calorie goal and fill you up, and which don't.9 -
If you buy a box of cereal/crackers/pasta/whatever, container of milk, bag of bread, yes there are multiple servings. No the company is not going to put on its label Only 1000 calories for this box of cereal/bag of bread etc, they are going to post what the serving size is. Yes, for many foods there are individually portioned foods... oatmeal packets, yogurts, granola bars, etc. But the single serve portions are more expensive than buying in bulk, I can't imagine feeding my family with individually bought little items.
The real issue is that many people have unrealistic views of what an actual portion size is. If you want to eat a low sugar, high volume food get some green vegetables or air popped popcorn.
Also, I think the majority of people on this site have extremely busy schedules and lives, with jobs, multiple children, spouses, ailing parents in their care, etc etc. If you want something you are going to make the time to make it happen. You know, like the 5 seconds it takes to read the nutritional panel on a box.5 -
I bought some trail mix might look like a single serve package to someone unaware of how caloric nuts are, but it was in fact 2.5 servings. The label did of course say that there were 2.5 servings, but they could have been more obvious about it, which many companies are moving towards.1
-
kshama2001 wrote: »I bought some trail mix might look like a single serve package to someone unaware of how caloric nuts are, but it was in fact 2.5 servings. The label did of course say that there were 2.5 servings, but they could have been more obvious about it, which many companies are moving towards.
With the new FDA labeling requirements, they won't be able to do that anymore...I forget the deadline for compliance.
Those are the one's that I find annoying when someone is clearly going to have the whole package...like a 20oz soda or something and it's listed as 2.5 servings or whatever...it should be a round number of servings...nobody is having .5 servings...4 -
Learning to read food labels is tricky and tough at best. Educating yourself is key, especially for things you like to eat often. When in doubt, shop the perimeter of the store and leave the pre-packaged, already prepared stuff alone. Its never good for you, no matter what the labels say. Taking a day to cook and prepare food for the week helps me stay on track, with weighing portions out so I can just grab what I need for the day and go.7
-
having to shop for hours to find actually healthy food, which is rare
False. It's all just food. Look at the label, eat the food accordingly (IIFYM + calorie restrictions).
If you're shopping for hours looking for so-called healthy food, well, you've got bigger problems than worrying over nutrition labels like this. Majoring in the minors, IMO.
My father-in-law was looking at the Lenny and Larry protein cookies, and he outright said that it ought to be illegal for them to call one package (one cookie) two servings. "Who is going to eat half a cookie!? It's such foolishness!" And I'm over here like, "Me. I will eat half a cookie."
Have you seen these friggin' cookies? They're huge. If you stuff that whole thing in your face and really think that it's only 200 calories (one serving size), that's a you-problem. It's not up to the company to protect you from yourself. It's on you to conduct your own research and do your own diligence.
14 -
kshama2001 wrote: »I bought some trail mix might look like a single serve package to someone unaware of how caloric nuts are, but it was in fact 2.5 servings. The label did of course say that there were 2.5 servings, but they could have been more obvious about it, which many companies are moving towards.
Yeah, those packages of nuts right by the cash registers are definitely "single" servings and should be labeled as such. Jerks.1 -
Just because you can't be bothered to read the info that is there doesn't make it a scam.13
-
so you really need to read things.
also how did you eat a whole box and only then realise you were stuffed and clearly had way more than one portion?
this is why eye balling dont work because nobody seems to have any idea what an actual serving size is6 -
I feel your pain and I get the point you are trying to make. I bought Naan one day, something we don't normally eat so I was oblivious to the high calories. The serving size turned out to be for 1/2 piece. Who eats a half slice of bread as a normal serving? Yes I know many of us are eating smaller servings but I'm talking a normal serving size... I thought huh, 190 calories isn't bad at all (we were making pizza). Turned out it was 380! Quite a difference. Read carefully my friends.2
-
The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.
I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.
Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.4 -
Silentpadna wrote: »The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.
I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.
Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.
In the US, serving sizes are based on FDA databases. They aren't determined by the companies. The serving size is based on what consumers self-report as a typical serving of types of food.
So if you eat 2.5 servings of crackers, you're actually eating more than the "average" for crackers (at least based on self-reports). This isn't the fault of the people who make Cheeze-Its. We're still capable of deciding to eat less than what is in a package.10 -
Silentpadna wrote: »The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.
I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.
Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.
For some things for sure...but I'm not sure how someone can look at a package that contains 25 servings and think it's a single serve...small packages that are 2 or 2.5 servings I can see...something that is 25 servings is going to be a fairly large package...like a cereal box or something.3 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.
I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.
Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.
In the US, serving sizes are based on FDA databases. They aren't determined by the companies. The serving size is based on what consumers self-report as a typical serving of types of food.
So if you eat 2.5 servings of crackers, you're actually eating more than the "average" for crackers (at least based on self-reports). This isn't the fault of the people who make Cheeze-Its. We're still capable of deciding to eat less than what is in a package.
I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, or even that they are doing something unlawful. I understand all of that, but I do doubt the self-reporting of foods like that, those that for someone like me allow me to binge on. My point is that they are sold in that size package for a good reason, and it benefits the supplier to have a nice low(er) calorie number to use on their label. I haven't compared the bag to the box, but in theory they (the serving sizes) should be the same. I'm sure that that particular size is made after a fair amount of market research to determine their best bang for the buck. And although there are 2.5 servings, it seems doubtful to me that they are marketed to share or to only eat part of.
It's not misleading to me. I read labels all the time. But I can see how they can capitalize on others' lack of attention to detail. That happens all the time. Just watch tv advertisements close enough and you see it everywhere.3 -
Silentpadna wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.
I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.
Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.
In the US, serving sizes are based on FDA databases. They aren't determined by the companies. The serving size is based on what consumers self-report as a typical serving of types of food.
So if you eat 2.5 servings of crackers, you're actually eating more than the "average" for crackers (at least based on self-reports). This isn't the fault of the people who make Cheeze-Its. We're still capable of deciding to eat less than what is in a package.
I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, or even that they are doing something unlawful. I understand all of that, but I do doubt the self-reporting of foods like that, those that for someone like me allow me to binge on. My point is that they are sold in that size package for a good reason, and it benefits the supplier to have a nice low(er) calorie number to use on their label. I haven't compared the bag to the box, but in theory they (the serving sizes) should be the same. I'm sure that that particular size is made after a fair amount of market research to determine their best bang for the buck. And although there are 2.5 servings, it seems doubtful to me that they are marketed to share or to only eat part of.
It's not misleading to me. I read labels all the time. But I can see how they can capitalize on others' lack of attention to detail. That happens all the time. Just watch tv advertisements close enough and you see it everywhere.
I agree with you that self-reporting can be really inaccurate.
If you didn't mean that food companies are trying to mislead us, I apologize for misreading you. When you wrote "I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose," I felt as if you were attributing a specific motivation to them when the truth is that they can't adjust the serving size to 1 even if they wanted to.1 -
"Only 100 calories!" the label exclaims in a giant bright star. "Wow!" I think. I have finally found it, a healthy food with minimal calories! I eat a whole box and am surprised to find I feel bloated. Hmm. Did I read the label wrong? I go to investigate, and lo and behold, it is in fact a 100 calories....but there are 25 servings of 0.01257^2 *x2= pi circular cuboidal grams. Of course I did not measure that out, thinking I could rely on the company to be honest and forward with their nutrition information.
Or my breathe is a bit gross after working out, and I want something sweet, so I eat a pack of no-sugar Tic Tacs. Later on the internet I learn that in fact they are 100% sugar, but since the serving size is 1 tic tac, they can use a legal loop hole to label their candy no calorie no sugar.
Of course these are somewhat of an exaggeration, but I am so frustrated with having to shop for hours to find actually healthy food, which is rare. And having to carefully examine ingredients to make sure I do not get tricked into thinking I ate a healthy meal when I did in fact not. Why can't food companies just be honest or sell their products in single serve sizes? I hope their is an overhaul soon to fix this.
Of course I could buy only chicken and vegetables and weigh them, but working a busy schedule this is unrealistic for me and it won't stick.
Weight loss is about calories first - calories second - and well, calories ALWAYS. You can choose to lose weight just by eating smaller portions. You can choose to lose wight while including "more" healthy foods, or you can try to eat "perfectly" while losing weight.....your choice.
Think about what you can stick to......not just while dieting, but also when maintaining. Find some healthy changes you can do forever.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Silentpadna wrote: »The information is there, as many have pointed out. But let's not kid ourselves that there is some attempt by the providers to mislead, or if not to mislead, to obfuscate.
I used to eat Cheeze-It crackers out of the small chip size bag (as opposed to whole boxes, which I also pigged out on). Those bags are probably what a normal person who's not paying close attention (like most here do) might eat in a convenience snack. The calories are listed at 150 per serving. There are, of course 2.5 servings per bag. You can get the super-small containers of 100 calories or so, but I think most people if they're looking for something to munch on are not going that small. It's very easy to overlook the servings per container and I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose.
Having said all that, I know when I got serious about counting and weighing, reading the info more closely is a habit. It's still on me to know. But the OP's post has at least some merit in my eyes.
In the US, serving sizes are based on FDA databases. They aren't determined by the companies. The serving size is based on what consumers self-report as a typical serving of types of food.
So if you eat 2.5 servings of crackers, you're actually eating more than the "average" for crackers (at least based on self-reports). This isn't the fault of the people who make Cheeze-Its. We're still capable of deciding to eat less than what is in a package.
I'm not saying it's anybody's fault, or even that they are doing something unlawful. I understand all of that, but I do doubt the self-reporting of foods like that, those that for someone like me allow me to binge on. My point is that they are sold in that size package for a good reason, and it benefits the supplier to have a nice low(er) calorie number to use on their label. I haven't compared the bag to the box, but in theory they (the serving sizes) should be the same. I'm sure that that particular size is made after a fair amount of market research to determine their best bang for the buck. And although there are 2.5 servings, it seems doubtful to me that they are marketed to share or to only eat part of.
It's not misleading to me. I read labels all the time. But I can see how they can capitalize on others' lack of attention to detail. That happens all the time. Just watch tv advertisements close enough and you see it everywhere.
I agree with you that self-reporting can be really inaccurate.
If you didn't mean that food companies are trying to mislead us, I apologize for misreading you. When you wrote "I have no doubt that the makers do that on purpose," I felt as if you were attributing a specific motivation to them when the truth is that they can't adjust the serving size to 1 even if they wanted to.
I do mean to say they are misleading, but not specifically with respect to the actual serving size. It's kind of a semantics thing. The issue I have is that they'll gladly use the "serving size" info, but market and package them in a way that makes it appear to the unknowing (if they are not paying attention to detail) that they are buying a normal size. They know a package containing 2.5 servings will sell better than one with one serving. The serving size info on the label actually does them a favor by saying there are 150 calories in a serving.
It's not a direct mislead, in the sense that they would be lying about nutritional content; it's more of a marketing thing in that it is to their advantage that calories per serving is what's on the label of a package that appears to be about a single serving for the casual buyer.
It's in their benefit to allow for there to be misconception among consumers. They are not providing false information as much as relying on that misconception to benefit them. Like I said, I do read labels carefully, but there was a time where I could easily believe that those bags had 150 calories in them. They look like about a serving to me, and that's what I'm driving at. (I know better now).5 -
so serving size 150g*
*warning bag may contain more than 1 serving should be added?6 -
Why do they not advertise honestly and offer serving sizes that are realistic? No one eats half a can of ravioli. They eat the whole can, but if they label it as half a serving they can advertise it as 220 calories. Advertising as all natural and healthy when something has added sugars and tons of fillers. I shouldn't have to read every ingredient on every product ever when I am shopping to make sure they aren't lying. The serving sizes need to at least be standardized and companies should not be able to advertise "All Natural Apple Juice" in big letters with Flavored Drink in small letters and a tiny little print on the back that says "contains no fruit juice". You really think that is being honest, and that they don't know they can trick people into thinking it is healthy? I am educated and know what to look for, but tons of people are not so I can see why it is hard for many to lose weight.12
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 396 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 968 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions