misleading/ annoying food labels

kfox15
kfox15 Posts: 97 Member
edited November 10 in Food and Nutrition
I was making buckwheat pancakes tonight and as I went to log, I noticed that the serving size listed in the nutrition facts, 1/3 cup dry mix, did not match with the recepie given on the chart on the back using 3/4 cup for the smallest batch. I found this super irritating because you have to go through the math and figure 1/3 mix is like 4/12 and 3/4 mix is 9/12 so the smallest recepie is 2 1/4 servings. Why on earth would they label food this way! Counting calories can be tedious enough with out having go through all of those steps. Has anyone else run into this situation with other foods? What are your thoughts?

Replies

  • SteveHunt113
    SteveHunt113 Posts: 648 Member
    My wife purchased some small ham patties. The label says 100 calories per server. Serving per package is 2.5. But there are 3 patties inside!!! Seriously??

    So 1.2 patties per serving. How stupid is that?
  • Just4shelly
    Just4shelly Posts: 2
    Know the feeling. Got the soup you microwave, thought they would be healthy, but there are 2 servings! Really, a cup of soup...crazy
  • kfox15
    kfox15 Posts: 97 Member
    Know the feeling. Got the soup you microwave, thought they would be healthy, but there are 2 servings! Really, a cup of soup...crazy

    I saw the same thing!! This makes me so angry! There are plently of people out there trying to make healthy choices but are not aware of how careful you need to be with things like that. Hmmm... maybe a letter to congress of the FDA is in order lol
  • mfp_1
    mfp_1 Posts: 516 Member
    1. I find things like 1/3 cup misleading/annoying/incomprehensible.

    2. Serving size can never be right for all. A little old lady and a large sporty male won't have the same serving.

    3. Serving size isn't there to tell you how much to serve. It's there to help you to calculate.

    4. Customers like to see "only x per serving" so manufacturers compete by reducing serving size claims.

    I ignore serving size and use the 'per 100 g' claim instead. It's easier to calculate when I weigh my actual serving.
  • nickyfm
    nickyfm Posts: 1,214 Member
    My personal favourite is the "low g.i" claim.
    Half the time I read the nutritional info, and there is MAYBE 2g of Fibre, 3g protein, and a crapload of sugar!!
    I read that there aren't proper laws in place to forbid health food claims like this one, as long as they're 'tested' for glycemic impact -.-
  • michael300891
    michael300891 Posts: 275
    The worst one ive come across is dried noodles - like pot noodles but the ones in the sachet. Youll get a 100g pack and itll say on the front per 100g (cooked) 400kcal. Obviously the trick is that when you cook the noodles they weigh around 300g so thats 1200kcal and most people dont have a clue. =)
  • annabellj
    annabellj Posts: 1,337 Member
    wow interesting info. will def be cking closer when reading labels and trying repeat, trying to calculate cals
  • dot120
    dot120 Posts: 4
    hi, i have wrote and complained to an ice cream company for making me eat more calories than i should hve done - i bough an individual tub of ice cream, then when i read the back it said it serves two, why say it is a pot for one, then put 2 servings, it is wrong!
  • mfp_1
    mfp_1 Posts: 516 Member
    Can you give us more details? (e.g. Brand, variety, size)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories