FDA finally got (somewhat) reasonable.

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

cave76

Washing Up
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
1,702
"The FDA is also proposing changes to serving size requirements in an effort to more accurately reflect what people usually eat or drink. For example, if you buy a 20-ounce soda, you're probably not going to stop drinking at the 8-ounce mark. The new rules would require that entire soda bottle to be one serving size -- making calorie counting simpler."

"Most of the required serving sizes will be going up"

FDA: Nutrition labels getting a makeover - CNN.com
 
I don't think those companies have any good reason to complain. They change their labels all the time and have to pay for the new design.
 
I don't think those companies have any good reason to complain. They change their labels all the time and have to pay for the new design.
Exactly what I was thinking.

A more likely outcome is they will downsize the products (also making the calorie counts appear more reasonable) and charge the same price. :rolleyes:
 
Exactly what I was thinking.

A more likely outcome is they will downsize the products (also making the calorie counts appear more reasonable) and charge the same price. :rolleyes:


Ya mean like they did with the nickel candy bars we used to buy back in the day?
 
So glad to see some movement on labeling issues... The Center for Science in the Public Interest recently published an interesting article and this image about this topic - totally worth reading, imo. After all, would it really occur to most folks that a "single serving bag" of chips is really two servings?


Food-label-revised-1-4-13_Page_1.jpg
 
My 9 year old daughter has been reading labels and has become very interested in nutrition. It took a while for her to understand that very concept Janet. Any normal person would assume a single bag of chips like that would be one serving.
 
Why can't we just have "calories per ounce" or "calories per 100 grams" or something similar?

This way it would be very easy to distinguish which item was more calorie dense. This would solve the problem or wacky serving sizes. As it stands you can make a muffin into two servings making the calorie count look not so terrible.

Like a muffin would be 200 calories per ounce compared to an apple that would be 50 calories per ounce (I have no idea if these are correct).
 
Why can't we just have "calories per ounce" or "calories per 100 grams" or something similar?

This way it would be very easy to distinguish which item was more calorie dense. This would solve the problem or wacky serving sizes. As it stands you can make a muffin into two servings making the calorie count look not so terrible.

Like a muffin would be 200 calories per ounce compared to an apple that would be 50 calories per ounce (I have no idea if these are correct).
Now you are just being logical. ;)
 
Why can't we just have "calories per ounce" or "calories per 100 grams" or something similar?

This way it would be very easy to distinguish which item was more calorie dense. This would solve the problem or wacky serving sizes. As it stands you can make a muffin into two servings making the calorie count look not so terrible.

Like a muffin would be 200 calories per ounce compared to an apple that would be 50 calories per ounce (I have no idea if these are correct).

That might be because then people would have to know how big an ounce of a particular food is: An ounce of marshmallows would be a LOT bigger than an ounce of an apple. I don't know if that's the reason---- just throwing out a possible reason.
I do agree though that one serving of haggis, for me, would be much less than a serving of ice cream. :LOL:
 
...After all, would it really occur to most folks that a "single serving bag" of chips is really two servings?...
It does to me, especially when I tell darling Himself that he just scarfed down a bazillion calories! His reply? "Well I ate it in just one sitting, so it's one serving." :bash: Not!
 
I think that other than children, who are at the mercy of the adults who provide their food, people know that what they are eating is going to make them fat. A person who is conciously watching their calories is going to pay attention to nutrition labels. But the people who really need this do not pay any attention to the nutritional label on the bag of chips when they're sitting there watching TV. You can't tell me that they don't know that it isn't healthy.
 
I like it.


It's easy enough to use the math so that it makes sense for your personal serving size. i.e. you might like to eat a whole (small) bag of chips at once, and I may prefer to eat it in 4 or 5 separate servings.

It's a lot better than having them decide what my serving size is.
 
Back
Top Bottom