One Bowl = 2 Servings. F.D.A. May Fix That.

[XemaSab]

Seeking a new weapon in the fight against obesity, the Food and Drug Administration wants to encourage manufacturers to post vital nutritional information, including calorie counts, on the front of food packages.

The goal is to give people a jolt of reality before they reach for another handful of chips. But the urgency of the message could be muted by a longstanding problem: official serving sizes for many packaged foods are just too small. And that means the calorie counts that go with them are often misleading.

So to get ready for front-of-package nutrition labeling, the F.D.A. is now looking at bringing serving sizes for foods like chips, cookies, breakfast cereals and ice cream into line with how Americans really eat. Combined with more prominent labeling, the result could be a greater sense of public caution about unhealthy foods.

“If you put on a meaningful portion size, it would scare a lot of people,” said Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina. “They would see, ‘I’m going to get 300 calories from that, or 500 calories.’ ”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/06portion.html?pagewanted=1

[Zoeisright]

1. Actual portion size is very different from what most people think it is.

For instance, a serving of ice cream is 1/2 cup. When's the last time you put only 1/2 cup of ice cream in your bowl? It's amazing how fast the calories (and fat, and sodium) add up.

[DJ13]

2. By the same token, changing the label wont do anything

People dont measure out the portion they eat based on the label.

[iris27]

10. The whole point of changing the label is to make the calories

reflected on the package closer to a true "average" portion a person tends to serve themselves. Like if the average person grabs 4 Oreos out of the package, but the serving size is 2. Changing it to 4 wouldn't change how many Oreos people grab, it would just make the numbers of on the package more relevant for people. No more multiplication needed to see how many calories are in your 20-oz bottle of coke.

[DJ13]

12. Raise your hand if you ever consider the label portion when eating

Its good that they change the labels to reflect real world portions, but the impact will be next to zero on most people.

[quinnox]

15. *crickets*

You are right, it won't mean a damn thing to the vast majority of the people.

[Mojorabbit]

16. When I am dieting I do

otherwise no.

[Bill McBlueState]

24. *raises hand* n/t

[Guilded Lilly]

19. The makers of food want you to eat more

so they probably prefer the misleading labels.

I think this would help considerably in clarifying the actual content of food packaging. Anything that can lead to healthier eating habits is a plus for consumers.
The manufacturers may take a hit, but it could also lead them to make healthier foods.

[Tesha]

17. Some of us do!

There's a kitchen scale mounted on the wall right next to
my pantry, and we often weigh out ingredients.

For example, a serving of pasta is 2 ounces and you'd be
surprised how small a pile of dry pasta that is, but we keep
pretty close track of how many portions are getting dumped
into the pot.

Tesha

[Jennicut]

18. I do but I have to being diabetic. I measure every single piece of food I eat and it does get

tiresome counting up to 1400 calories a day...

[davsand]

4. Packages are deceptive a lot of times.

Check what looks like a single serve bottle of juice (or even soda) and very often that bottle is two or more servings. It goes the same way with the smaller bags of chips or cookies, or most anything else.

About the only thing I "trust" is the 100 calorie packs because those are small enough that you know you aren't gonna get THAT much...



Laura

[CrispyQ]

13. I read a one ounce serving of cheese is the size of 4 dice.

An average potato is the size of your fist. ~gasp! The spuds in my grocer are usually twice that size!

I hope this helps, but I think it will mostly benefit people who already read labels & are concerned with this issue.

[onehandle]

3. Dupe. Posted it this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7652479

[RC]

5. People need to start looking at the sodium content of their food.

A frozen stir fry servers 4: Sodium 1250 mg
What's up with that? Why bother to freeze it?

[Guilded Lilly]

7. you've got that right!

Sodium is a silent demon in tons of food.

[Guilded Lilly]

6. If this helps anyone,great, but the main problem is

the cost of healthier foods is out of the reach of the budget of many families and they must rely on lower quality, higher fat food to feed their family.

Oh, I'm sure we will get the typical. oh-so-clever and shallow responses about "fat people" and "lazy asses" but those comments don't do a damn bit of good when it comes to actually improving the cost of healthier foods to a vast proportion of our population.

[XemaSab]

21. I think a lot of it is less about cost than about laziness

After being at work all day, the thought of spending an hour in the kitchen cooking something from scratch sounds hard. :(

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iris27]

11. Wow, nuance and sensitivity!

:eyes:

[End Of The Road]

14. cool - I never knew glutton was a verb. nt

[Schema Thing]

9. Is this that goatse thing?

[flvegan]

20. I actually like this idea.

Yes, there are a number of people that could care less about caloric content. This will have no bearing on them. But, the shock of the fat, calorie, sodium, etc count of what one is *likely* to eat might be enough to persuade some folks to not shovel that shit into their faces in the first place.

[XemaSab]

22. I do have to confess

that one of my reactions to the article was this: If you have to read the label, you probably shouldn't eat what's in the package.

The fruit and veggie section doesn't NEED labels. :P

[RC]

23. Kinna like if you hafta ask the price, you can't afford it?

[Bill McBlueState]

25. sounds like a good move

My wife bought some cinnamon rolls last week. The label says 240 calories per serving, which seems reasonable if it's the centerpiece of your breakfast. But "serving" means half a roll. Who eats half a roll?

[Pharlo]

26. Well, actually, by the time

The Damn Mutts get done collecting their "Hey! We get some of that!" food tax, all I'm left with is about half a roll. The listed serving sizes work good for The Damn Mutts and I. And, yes, I read the nutrition labels. First thing I look at is calories/serving, second thing I look at is servings/container, then fat and sodium contents. I eat whatever I want, I just want to know what it is I'm eating. And yes, I do figure the 'canine food tax' into my servings. It works very well for me.