FDA Considering Realistic Nutrition Info
According to the New York Times:
…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.’ ”
The problem is important because the standard serving size shown on a package determines all the other nutritional values on the label, including calorie counts. If the serving size is smaller than what people really eat, unless they study the label carefully they may think they are getting fewer calories or other nutrients than they are.
S’truth. The nutritional info on many products can be pretty deceiving, if you don’t read the fine print. A beverage like Vitamin Water is a perfect example of this – at a glance, the calories in your typical 20 oz. bottle seem relatively low. But that’s because a “serving” is only 8 oz.! Needless to state, very few people would buy a 20 oz. bottle of a beverage, and then drink only 8 oz. of it. In realistic terms, the cals/sugar in a TYPICAL serving are 2.5 times what it states on the label.
This is also true for many other easy-to-overeat foods, like ready-to-eat breakfast cereal and peanut butter. For most people, a “serving” of cereal is a bowl, not 3/4 of a cup. Likewise, I know of very few people who don’t take heaping spoonfuls of peanut butter – it’s a snap to consume 2 – 3 times the serving size listed on the label.
And don’t get me started on prepared foods like frozen and microwaveable “single serving” entrees… as the article notes:
Healthy Choice soups, made by ConAgra Foods, are sold in 14-ounce microwaveable bowls. Although they appear to be meant for one person, the label says they contain “about two servings.”
The packaging makes it almost a “bait and switch” – who’s going to microwave a bowl of soup and eat only half of it?
So, I kinda like this idea. I’ll be interested to see where the FDA goes with it.
Share
ultimatefat on 06 Feb 2010 at 10:27 pm #
FDA Considering Realistic Nutrition Info – http://blog.ultimatefatburner.com/2010/0…
via Twitoaster
Makster on 07 Feb 2010 at 11:53 am #
This is an interesting subject. Serving size has always been a problem for most people. I notice it most on cereal and snack foods. They will see the serving size has only 100 calories, for 1 cup, then eat 1/3 of the box.
It would be nice to see a more “realistic” serving size and the calorie and nutrition data given.
Don’t know if it would stop the “average” person from over consuming, but it may help.
Elissa on 07 Feb 2010 at 5:57 pm #
Unless you cook, or are otherwise compelled to pay attention to serving size (by weight and/or volume), terms like “cup” aren’t particularly meaningful. When you buy a set of cereal bowls, for example, do you actually measure how many cups they hold?
In addition, the way nutrition info labels are formatted leaves a lot to be desired. If you look closely at your standard label, the serving size is written using a regular font weight, and is also sometimes written in a smaller size, and/or placed off to the side. On the other hand, terms like “calories,” “protein” etc. are printed in boldface, and highlighted between thick lines – which draws the eye. Thus, at a glance, it’s easy to see the cals and macronutrients in a serving, but not so easy to see what a serving consists of. You have to look for this info, and it needs to override other visual cues. For example, if a cereal box has a picture of a bowl of cereal on the front, then it’s easy to assume that that’s what a serving is.
In other cases, like mayonnaise, peanut butter and salad dressing, the serving size is typically given in tablespoons. But they mean LEVEL tablespoons, not rounded (or heaping) ones. But this is quite unclear on the label, so it’s not hard to consume 2 – 3 servings at a pop without thinking too much about it.
This is the reason why so much emphasis is put on weighing/measuring food in the “Bodybuilding Revealed” and “Fat Loss Revealed” programs. Initially, it’s a PITA, to be sure, but it does force people to make associations between specific amounts of food and calories. If you can get people to do this for even just a day or two, it blows their minds.
Even simpler systems that rely on visualization techniques (i.e., comparing a portion to your hand, fist, a deck of cards, etc.) work on the same principle… such rules force people to make an association between a portion size and what is/isn’t ok to eat.
Will something like this change behavior? Maybe, maybe not. But it’s worth a shot, and – as a bonus – would at least force manufacturers to be honest, which is never a bad thing.
Makster on 08 Feb 2010 at 10:05 am #
Manufacturers being honest? That would be a change for the better. Making a nutrition label easy to understand would be a step in the right direction. I agree with you that the serving size and some of the other info are not easy to pick out on the label.
Buuuuuut, the info is still there and people need to pay a little more attention to it. I am sure most people would’nt pay a lot of attention to the label if it was changed.
Although every little step in the right direction is a plus.