FDA to increase "serving sizes"? (NYT, 2/5/10)

[4Snisl]

Thoughts on having serving sizes increased on packages? Do you find that standard serving sizes on packages of food are misleading?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/bus...

My 2 cents: why not create a shift where people first look at the serving size, and then multiply (or in some cases, divide) as needed? Or have the prominent front of label packaging specify nutrients in more specific terms, like:

-volumetric (e.g. 110 calories per 3/4 cup
)-count (100 calories per cookie)
-fraction of package (e.g. 400 mg sodium per 1/2 container) or
-weight amount (e.g. 3 grams of fat per 0.5 oz.)

instead of the generic term "serving"? When the portion I choose to eat is say, 3 times the serving size on the package, I often re-think how much I'm eating (from a cost standpoint and from a nutritional standpoint). My concern is that increasing the serving size will simply "normalize" overeating in many cases....

Plus, I'm wondering: why wouldn't the serving size for fresh vegetables and fruits change along with "less virtuous" options? Or does 1/2 cup of cooked broccoli not seem pitifully small :) ?

[rockandroller1]

I'm glad they're doing this. Most CHers are label readers or at least pay more attention to their food consumption, but there a LOT of people who think that "a can" of soda or "a bag" of chips is 1 serving, especially when you factor in stuff like the "100 calories" advertisement on the bag of chips scenario that another poster described - to plaster that on the front, but have the bag actually have MORE than that serving in it/over 100 calories is deceptive and frankly, more work than the average lazy consumer does. Instead of putting 2 "servings" of pop on the side of the can, which means nothing, if they put the total calories in the container, I think that would mean more to a lot of people, like they might consume slightly less of the product.

It would be nice if you could just get the smaller, "one serving" portion more readily, but that's too much to ask I suppose. Remember the tiny/small bag of fries that used to be standard in the 70s at fast food places? Back when everyone wasn't obese?

[goodhealthgourmet]

"Remember the tiny/small bag of fries that used to be standard in the 70s at fast food places? Back when everyone wasn't obese?"
~~~~~~~
and the "tiny" bottles of Coke, and the "tiny" bagels, and the "tiny" slices of pizza...the average American consumes nearly *two pounds* more food per week now than they did in 1970.

i've already said it more than once in this thread, but i like this new plan.

[MandalayVA]

I've noticed recently that cans and small bottles of soda have a breakdown between the "suggested" serving and how much the whole container covers. If that spread to other junk maybe people would get a clue.

[goodhealthgourmet]

i, for one, would be happy to see this. it won't make a difference in my personal eating habits - as a nutrition professional i'm well versed in true serving sizes (as opposed to subjective "portion" sizes). i've been reading labels for years, and crunching numbers in my head for so long that i'm pretty much a human calculator at this point. but these practices that come so readily to me are not at all second nature to most consumers, and many people can use all the help they can get. if seeing the *accurate* numbers on the front of the package is going to afford them a better understanding of their consumption, i say bravo. it's not about laziness, or unwillingness to do any "work" to figure these things out. as others have already stated, labels can be deceptive and people make assumptions about small packaged items. they also act on cues from other elements of the eating experience, such as the size of dishes and glassware...breakfast is one of my favorite illustrations of this phenomenon. i can't even begin to tell you how many clients naturally assume that filling their bowl with cereal is one serving...they don't think too much about the size of the bowl, just that it's "a bowl" and they pour their cereal into it. but once i measure out an actual serving size in front of them, they're usually pretty shocked to discover that their typical morning portion is equal to at least 2 or 3 (or more) "servings." same goes for the "glass" of orange juice.

for the people who don't "need" the extra help, so be it - this won't really impact their lives, but i see no reason to shoot down the idea if it proves useful to others.

[4Snisl]

So here's a question/scenario: what implications are there, if any, to considering a "family size" bag of potato chips to be 4 servings? Positive or negative.....

[goodhealthgourmet]

i like this question, primarily because i've never felt this particular term served a useful purpose. it's completely arbitrary. sure, the *traditional* old-school idea of a nuclear family was based on 4 people, but that's hardly the case in present-day society...and regardless, i don't think i've ever seen a "family-size" package of anything - be it chips or toilet paper- that contained exactly four servings or units. in my experience, "family-size" just means "more," and that's hardly a clear, quantifiable description. personally i'd like to see the term disappear altogether.

[4Snisl]

Funny- I'd picked four because I once counseled a mother in a "traditional nuclear" family who thought that a "family size bag" of chips could be split among family members at a single eating occasion. I hadn't thought about subliminal social commentary....

I guess what (internally) surprised me so much in the situation was that there wasn't some internal cue to say, 'Gee, this seems like a lot for the four of us!' Her main cue was the arbitrary marketing term of "family size". What happens if something that many people consider less arbitrary, like a FDA-determined serving size, potentially resets what people think is "a lot" or "a little"?

[goodhealthgourmet]

"Funny- I'd picked four because I once counseled a mother in a "traditional nuclear" family who thought that a "family size bag" of chips could be split among family members at a single eating occasion."
~~~~~~~
yeah, that's my point - the term is too vague and open to subjective interpretation. family-size may mean one thing to your client with a standard nuclear family, but it mean something entirely different to the Octomom ;)

as for your surprise about the lack of internal cues regarding portion size, i stopped being surprised about that a long time ago. people either just don't know, or they've grown so accustomed to excessive consumption and super-sized portions that there's no understanding of what's "normal" anymore. in all honesty i'm not sure how this is going to play out - it's a slippery slope. one might argue that it will result in lower intake because people will be satisfied with one serving, so they'll stop there...instead of feeling somehow "cheated" or dissatisfied and deciding to have "just a little more" (which often turns into a lot more). on the other hand, telling people that "more" is the new normal could conceivably lead to increased consumption among people whose previous intake was reasonable.

we'll just have to see...

[jgg13]

It is simple math in almost all cases. I don't see why the current system is a big deal.

[small h]

I agree to an extent, but as greygarious points out:

"Duane Reade, the pharmacy chain, sells 1.3-ounce bags of its Delish potato chips with the words “100 calories” in bold type across the front. But the calorie count refers to a one-ounce serving, and the label says the bag holds one-and-one-third servings."

Any sane person would assume that a little bag of chips was a single serving. The labeling is purposefully deceptive. The same goes for the Healthy Choice soup, which looks like a single serving - the sort of thing you might bring to the office and pop in the microwave for lunch - but is actually two servings.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/201...

[jgg13]

Call me nuts but when I actually do care, I'll look at the label no matter if it looks like a single serving to me or not. Why? Because I know that tehy pull tricks like that. Yeah, sure, it is sleazy but at some point people need to do a little work themselves. This isn't a case where the information isn't readily available, it is a case that people are too lazy and/or stupid to get it themselves.

[small h]

Ever since I learned that a 12 ounce can of V8 is supposed to be two servings (seriously, what adult shares a can of V8?), I read the labels, just as you do. But I'm not enough of a social Darwinist to think that people - even lazy, stupid people - shouldn't have easier access to better information.

[jgg13]

Would I prefer that serving sizes be more rational, sure. (I suppose that means I'd dislike a serving size of pi ...) At the same time I disagree with all of the "oh, woe is us, it is too hard to figure out" stuff that goes on. I guess that I'm saying that to me I think there is fault on both sides, while some people seem to only want to blame the food industry. The info is there & available, it isn't too difficult to parse.

[small h]

I'm happy to assign equal blame to both sides. But your attitude seems to be that if people aren't willing to do the necessary "work" to understand what they're ingesting, to hell with them. However, even if YOU are extra-special-careful about what you ingest, you're still footing the bill - through your health insurance premiums and tax dollars - for the lazy, stupid habits of people who aren't so diligent.

[kmcarr]

<clap>-<clap>-<clap>-<clap>-<clap>-<clap>-<clap>-<clap>

From the math geek in the balcony.

[jlafler]

It seems to me that one of the groups that this is especially targeted at should be children and teens, because these are the people who are learning to make their own food choices. In which case something like "this bag is 1 snack food portion. You should eat no more than 5 portions of snack food per week" (or something like that) might be a better approach. Of course, manufacturers would hate this. This is just off the top of my head; I don't think there's really a good substitute for modeling behavior to kids.

At my daughter's preschool, foods are color-coded on the lunch and snack menus, with the most nutrient-dense in green, less nutrient-dense in yellow, and least nutrient-dense in red. This is similar to the system used in the employee cafes at Google.

[queencru]

I agree. Until the snack machines get removed from schools, the information on the food that goes into snack machine packages/20 oz coke really should be about the entire package, not the so-called 2-3 servings. Realistically if you go to the school's ice cream machines, you aren't going to eat what you get out of them in 2 servings.

[dave_c]

The FDA should crackdown on deceptive or ambiguous packaging.

However, adjusting serving size is somewhat irrelevant and moot. Currently, people are eating larger portions so adjusting to larger serving sizes will not make a difference... It's obvious they don't pay attention to the labels from the get go.

[queencru]

There are plenty of items out there that are designed to be one serving and then end up to be 2-3 when you look at the package. For instance, if you get a small bag of potato chips or a candy bar out of a vending machine, that's probably going to be one serving. Why not just put the nutritional information for the entire package instead of saying it's 3 servings?

[coney with everything]

Exactly. Look at a Pepperidge Farm pot pie. A Pot Pie is a Serving--who splits a pot pie? The whole point is that it's designed to be one thing. Individual pie!

But the PF pie's is 2 or 2.5 servings (can't remember). Right...

And it's 500 calories per SERVING! You look at 500 calories and think, not terrible. Then you find that the pie you consume as lunch was more than half the calories you should take in for a day.

[goodhealthgourmet]

coney, your example is the perfect illustration of why i like the proposed idea. if it will result in more revelations like that and not only prevent people from *unwittingly* overeating, but also serve as a wake-up call to increase their awareness of what they're *actually* eating, then it's a success.

[greygarious]

Obviously deceptive packaging - like the 1.3 ounce bag of chips cited in the article - should be stopped. The obesity problem in America is principally due to overconsumption of snack foods, sweets, and fatty foods. It MIGHT help if the front of a bag or box clearly listed the number of calories per cookie, cracker, or piece of candy. But really - the info is already there if you care enough to read it and do some simple math. If that's too much to ask, then no FDA regulation change is going to help you.

[4Snisl]

Actually, you're bringing up a great point. All the information is already there, yet it seems like doing the math to match "what really goes down" is where there is often a disconnect.

Perhaps bringing up serving sizes will, by default, make that connection- and people may be more motivated to reduce portion size if the numbers show a reality that resonates harshly.

[MikeG]

Personally, I would also prefer a per-item count for many foods, but considering that public health issues focus on a "random person off the street", I think it makes more sense to adjust the labels to reflect typical current eating patterns rather than just making people jump through a different set of hoops to arrive at that same information.

As for making people think about serving sizes, it seems to me it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. Isn't it just as "motivating" to see a high calorie count for your usual serving, as it is to realize you're eating 3 "theoretical" servings? Without having to do extra math in your head?

As for fruits and vegs, I didn't see them specifically mentioned in the article, but as far as I've seen, they don't all list information for half-cup serving sizes right now. Why do you think they wouldn't adjust those as needed, too, if their research suggests their "typical" serving sizes have also changed?

[4Snisl]

RE: Fruits and vegetables.....you're right, I actually don't know if there are plans to adjust those serving sizes. It was more a reaction to this quotation:
"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."

RE: "Isn't it just as "motivating" to see a high calorie count for your usual serving....."
To me, it seems like a bigger serving size indicates that it is "normal" to eat an amount that might have once been considered abnormally large. With new standards, if you're eating a smaller amount (e.g. what is currently considered "normal") then you are "skimping".

The practice of "eating to satiety" can be a tough one to practice, so sometimes people look to the package label- or the size of a package itself- to guide what they should be eating in order to feel satisfied. But perhaps the people who would jump through hoops and do any "extra math" are people who would are more inclined to practice portion control, and to divide as necessary with serving sizes that seem personally excessive.

Finally, there's the issue of discrepancy between package serving sizes and "serving sizes" considered for federal diet guidance.....but that's probably getting ahead of myself.....

Your point of view is thoughtful, enlightening and appreciated. I used to work for the DHHS, and still am in the field of nutrition, and suspect that how I view things is really skewed.

[Blueicus]

The serving size already has enough information regarding its size relative to a container (in most cases

[4Snisl]

Right....but the front-of-package nutritional claims usually don't include the specific serving size info from the actual nutrition facts label.