# FDA finally got (somewhat) reasonable.



## cave76 (Feb 27, 2014)

"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


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

What a great idea! It is amazing it took this long to come up with that.


----------



## cave76 (Feb 27, 2014)

GB said:


> What a great idea! It is amazing it took this long to come up with that.



Well, it IS the guvmint, after all. 

Next they'll work on whether the earth is flat or not.


----------



## menumaker (Feb 27, 2014)

What a good idea  How are the prices going to reflect these changes do you think.or am I being cynical, sorry


----------



## cave76 (Feb 27, 2014)

menumaker said:


> What a good idea  How are the prices going to reflect these changes do you think.or am I being cynical, sorry



No, not being cynical, just realistic.

"The FDA projects food companies will have to pay around $2 billion as they change the labels."

Ever hear of the trickle down effect?

Obama Administration Announces Sweeping Update To Nutrition Labels


----------



## taxlady (Feb 27, 2014)

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.


----------



## Cooking Goddess (Feb 27, 2014)

Of course they don't have any reason to complain taxy, but they'll still pass the cost along to shoppers. Why? Because they can.


----------



## Steve Kroll (Feb 27, 2014)

taxlady said:


> 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.


----------



## taxlady (Feb 27, 2014)

Steve Kroll said:


> 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.


I hadn't thought of that. You are probably right.


----------



## CarolPa (Feb 27, 2014)

Steve Kroll said:


> 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.




Ya mean like they did with the nickel candy bars we used to buy back in the day?


----------



## cave76 (Feb 27, 2014)

CarolPa said:


> Ya mean like they did with the nickel candy bars we used to buy back in the day?


----------



## Janet H (Feb 27, 2014)

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?


----------



## GB (Feb 27, 2014)

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.


----------



## bakechef (Feb 27, 2014)

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).


----------



## taxlady (Feb 27, 2014)

bakechef said:


> 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.


----------



## cave76 (Feb 27, 2014)

bakechef said:


> 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.


----------



## Cooking Goddess (Feb 27, 2014)

Janet H said:


> ...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."  *Not!*


----------



## CarolPa (Feb 27, 2014)

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.


----------



## Zhizara (Feb 27, 2014)

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.


----------



## Andy M. (Feb 27, 2014)

I like the label changes.  They make it easier to read and understand.  Not a bad thing.


----------



## CarolPa (Feb 28, 2014)

Zhizara said:


> 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.
> ...




From what I've seen, most of those small bags of chips have about 6 chips and a lot of air.  What's a serving....1 chip?


----------



## cave76 (Feb 28, 2014)

Zhizara said:


> It's easy enough to use the math so that it makes sense for your personal serving size.




The words 'easy' and 'math' don't belong in the same sentence, FYI.


----------

