If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WVAS Montgomery)   And how many of us were fooled by the 90-calorie-per-serving container of greasy dehydrated compressed potato jam with 26 servings?   (wvasfm.org) divider line 60
    More: Interesting, nutrition label, calories, potatoes, convenience foods, containers, All Things Considered, helping, tone hole  
•       •       •

5204 clicks; posted to Geek » on 26 Feb 2014 at 4:20 PM (6 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



60 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2014-02-26 03:51:01 PM
"May a 'fat free' claim be made even though the product is essentially 100% fat, for example, a cooking oil spray that has a very small serving size?" (question N27)

Answer: Well, technically, yes, but that would be misleading so you shouldn't do it even though our regulations clearly allow it.
 
2014-02-26 04:24:00 PM
As the one that does the shopping and cooking in our house, I read labels A LOT and I'm glad they're going to be getting some tweaks.
 
2014-02-26 04:26:51 PM
I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")
 
2014-02-26 04:28:47 PM
I remember getting a package of 4 bratwursts that the label said contained 5 servings. WTF?
 
2014-02-26 04:33:41 PM

FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")


Everything that's "part of a balanced breakfast" is a giant glucose bomb for the morning. My pancreas hurts just thinking about it.
 
2014-02-26 04:34:45 PM

Chuck Wagon: I remember getting a package of 4 bratwursts that the label said contained 5 servings. WTF?

Warner Siblings paging Dally Llama. Warner Siblings paging Dally Llama/
 
2014-02-26 04:35:06 PM
Thought these would make a good cheap lunch option.
Missed the fine print that they are two servings
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-26 04:35:43 PM

Chuck Wagon: I remember getting a package of 4 bratwursts that the label said contained 5 servings. WTF?


insert penis joke here....

static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-02-26 04:38:51 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")

Everything that's "part of a balanced breakfast" is a giant glucose bomb for the morning. My pancreas hurts just thinking about it.


Right? Generally they show the cereal (always a full bowl too), buttered toast, milk (aside from what's in the cereal), OJ, and fruit. Sometimes there's even an egg in there somewhere. Who are these people eating these massive "balanced" breakfasts, and do they weigh 600 lbs?
 
2014-02-26 04:40:25 PM
Yeah, I noticed that when looking at US food labels. 'What the fark is a "serving" are why is there an non-whole number of them in this package?'
 
2014-02-26 04:40:34 PM
Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?
 
2014-02-26 04:44:40 PM
Here's an idea.

personal responsibility.

Flame on.
 
2014-02-26 04:44:50 PM
A 'Serving" of potato chips is ten chips. Who the fark eats just 10 chips? Heck a small bag from the vending machine is probably 3 times that.
 
2014-02-26 04:45:42 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: Everything that's "part of a balanced breakfast" is a giant glucose bomb for the morning


*checks beer label*
 
2014-02-26 04:47:35 PM

Bad_Seed: Yeah, I noticed that when looking at US food labels. 'What the fark is a "serving" are why is there an non-whole number of them in this package?'


"Serving" is an entirely arbitrary measurement of the material contained within the container that is the reference point for the label.

Unlike places where labels are meant to have meaning that have common measurements to allow a relative comparison (100mg, 100ml, etc), in 'merica we just arbitrarily declare that 1/8th of a box of pasta is a "serving" because it makes the numbers look useful.

Some people like to claim that the "Serving" is how much of it you should eat in a meal, which is crap.  The box of pasta has no idea whether or not I'm having bread with dinner to, so how does it know how much to suggest I should eat?

It's basically a way to shell-game around the label requirement and obfuscate the information from consumers.
 
2014-02-26 04:48:40 PM

FoxKelfonne: ecmoRandomNumbers: FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")

Everything that's "part of a balanced breakfast" is a giant glucose bomb for the morning. My pancreas hurts just thinking about it.

Right? Generally they show the cereal (always a full bowl too), buttered toast, milk (aside from what's in the cereal), OJ, and fruit. Sometimes there's even an egg in there somewhere. Who are these people eating these massive "balanced" breakfasts, and do they weigh 600 lbs?


I think the idea is to have your largest meal be breakfast, and your smallest be dinner. Following that, I can see how it might be considered "balanced."
 
2014-02-26 04:50:17 PM

theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?


Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.
 
2014-02-26 04:57:35 PM

FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")


I weigh my cereal to match the serving.  Most cereal servings are around 55-58 grams.  Some give 30 grams (Cheerios), so I do two of those.  The worst offenders for sugar tend to be the meusli kind - the added dried fruit are sugar bombs.  Other than that most aren't bad for sugar.
 
2014-02-26 05:04:33 PM

MyRandomName: theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?

Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.


Doesn't really matter anymore. It's nice they want to make things easier for those of us who watch what we eat. But this will have zero impact on obesity rate because people will simply continue to eat as they always have. Add to that the fact that fat acceptance seems to be taking off lately while medical research on obesity is being marginalized as "thin privilege" and you create a group with no interest in changing anything. Hell, we've reached the point where some are even promoting their unhealthy lifestyles. The only way we're going to solve obesity in this country is if a pharmaceutical company creates a weight loss pill that allows people to eat as much of whatever they want while maintaining or losing weight.
 
2014-02-26 05:08:55 PM

MyRandomName: theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?

Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.


No, they are counting on the inability of the common American to care enough to create a spreadsheet to make sense of the various portion sizes.

Just use a reasonable baseline. Add a standard amount for comparison purposes. Right next to the "per serving" it could say "per 100 grams" or whatever amount is chosen.
 
2014-02-26 05:13:23 PM

DerAppie: MyRandomName: theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?

Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.

No, they are counting on the inability of the common American to care enough to create a spreadsheet to make sense of the various portion sizes.

Just use a reasonable baseline. Add a standard amount for comparison purposes. Right next to the "per serving" it could say "per 100 grams" or whatever amount is chosen.


What is a reasonable baseline? Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?
 
2014-02-26 05:18:47 PM

MyRandomName: Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?


2.bp.blogspot.com

Based on this morning's sample, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.
 
2014-02-26 05:20:03 PM

MyRandomName: How much does a Twinkie weigh?


600 lbs
 
2014-02-26 05:20:38 PM

optikeye: MyRandomName: Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 560x413]

Based on this morning's sample, it would be a Twinkie... thirty-five feet long, weighing approximately six hundred pounds.


damnit!
 
2014-02-26 05:22:37 PM
MyRandomName:
What is a reasonable baseline? Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?

The amount you actually eat is completely unimportant.

The important part is to have a steady baseline of comparison between two items.  100g of this has X of A, Y of B, and Z of C.  100g of this other thing has X2, Y2, Z2.

You now know what their relative density of nutrients is.  You can then make meaningful decisions based on that information easily.  Random arbitrary reference frames are mathable, but unnecessarily complicated.
 
2014-02-26 05:30:13 PM

theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?


No need. From TFA, "The food industry has pushed back against the idea."
 
2014-02-26 05:32:50 PM
For comparing how much salt various alternatives have I am often reduced to comparing sodium/calories.

Many commercial bakery goods that you wouldn't expect to be loaded with salt are.
 
2014-02-26 05:37:17 PM

NkThrasher: MyRandomName:
What is a reasonable baseline? Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?

The amount you actually eat is completely unimportant.

The important part is to have a steady baseline of comparison between two items.  100g of this has X of A, Y of B, and Z of C.  100g of this other thing has X2, Y2, Z2.

You now know what their relative density of nutrients is.  You can then make meaningful decisions based on that information easily.  Random arbitrary reference frames are mathable, but unnecessarily complicated.


No offense bet I would gather more people choose food by taste than by nutritional density. Measurements by weight are just not valid absent a scale. Package sizes are more apt from many items.
 
2014-02-26 05:37:57 PM

johnny_vegas: MyRandomName: How much does a Twinkie weigh?

600 lbs


I laughed at both replies. Kudos.
 
2014-02-26 05:42:11 PM

MyRandomName: DerAppie: MyRandomName: theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?

Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.

No, they are counting on the inability of the common American to care enough to create a spreadsheet to make sense of the various portion sizes.

Just use a reasonable baseline. Add a standard amount for comparison purposes. Right next to the "per serving" it could say "per 100 grams" or whatever amount is chosen.

What is a reasonable baseline? Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?


Don't be daft. Like I said, it can be right next to the "per serving". And it isn't about knowing exactly how much calories etc you get, but about being able to compare the nutritional value of different products without needing to doing maths (with really crappy values), while remembering 20 previously calculated values, in the store. By using an equal weight of product to give the value for, people can simply hold the containers next to each other without needing to compensate for differences in serving size.

Besides, hardly anyone measures the amount of peanut butter they take out of the jar so why be overly worried about specific values for a serving?
 
2014-02-26 05:45:17 PM

MyRandomName: No offense bet I would gather more people choose food by taste than by nutritional density. Measurements by weight are just not valid absent a scale. Package sizes are more apt from many items.


They do, but the point is to make it possible for them to consider nutritional density in an easy way.  Weight or volume differences are irrelevant, a common baseline to compare is.  In Europle labels are per 100g, 100ml, or similar.  You don't get "3 chips per serving" vs "5.625 Oz per serving" comparisons which short of breaking out a calculator and actually being a mathy enough person to figure it out are meaningless for comparison.
 
2014-02-26 05:46:11 PM

theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?


There's a fella in the comments section of TFA who in one comment says "the government should not be mandating anything about this"

And in the other claims,

"Making the calorie print larger sounds great... until you realize that some people use the higher numbers as an indicator of better tasting food (higher means better). so BACKFIRE!"

Obviously another rocket surgeon.
 
2014-02-26 05:49:32 PM

NkThrasher: The box of pasta has no idea whether or not I'm having bread with dinner to, so how does it know how much to suggest I should eat?


Shut up pasta box! You're not the boss of me!
 
2014-02-26 05:49:35 PM

efgeise: FoxKelfonne: ecmoRandomNumbers: FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")

Everything that's "part of a balanced breakfast" is a giant glucose bomb for the morning. My pancreas hurts just thinking about it.

Right? Generally they show the cereal (always a full bowl too), buttered toast, milk (aside from what's in the cereal), OJ, and fruit. Sometimes there's even an egg in there somewhere. Who are these people eating these massive "balanced" breakfasts, and do they weigh 600 lbs?

I think the idea is to have your largest meal be breakfast, and your smallest be dinner. Following that, I can see how it might be considered "balanced."


Works when you need the fuel to be out working hard, manual labor, like the pastoral image of the hard working American farmer.

Sitting in an office, not so much.

I remember reading in a Filipino cookbook that in the Philippines, in the section about breakfast foods that an American might want to take care preparing some of the breakfasts, because the heaviest meal of the day is usually breakfast, with dinner being a much lighter affair
 
2014-02-26 05:50:16 PM

MyRandomName: NkThrasher: MyRandomName:
What is a reasonable baseline? Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?

The amount you actually eat is completely unimportant.

The important part is to have a steady baseline of comparison between two items.  100g of this has X of A, Y of B, and Z of C.  100g of this other thing has X2, Y2, Z2.

You now know what their relative density of nutrients is.  You can then make meaningful decisions based on that information easily.  Random arbitrary reference frames are mathable, but unnecessarily complicated.

No offense bet I would gather more people choose food by taste than by nutritional density. Measurements by weight are just not valid absent a scale. Package sizes are more apt from many items.


And for the people who go solely by taste the nutrition label might as well be completely absent. Now imagine someone with a low sodium diet. It takes 1 second to see that 1 gram of salt per 100 grams for brand A is less than 1.1 gram of salt per 100 grams for brand B. Now imagine doing the same with values for a serving size of 23 grams for brand A vs values for a serving size of 28 grams for brand B. The instant comparison just isn't there.

This is why it is useful to have the amount of the various salts/fats/carbs/sugars per standard unit posted on the packaging.
 
2014-02-26 05:53:35 PM
DerAppie: Just use a reasonable baseline. Add a standard amount for comparison purposes. Right next to the "per serving" it could say "per 100 grams" or whatever amount is chosen.

Calories per gram
Count of product to make a serving (number of grams in serving)


Calories per gram: 10
Serving size: 4 cookies (100 grams)

^ // numbers totally made up and probably way the fark off
 
2014-02-26 06:01:56 PM

lordargent: DerAppie: Just use a reasonable baseline. Add a standard amount for comparison purposes. Right next to the "per serving" it could say "per 100 grams" or whatever amount is chosen.

Calories per gram
Count of product to make a serving (number of grams in serving)


Calories per gram: 10
Serving size: 4 cookies (100 grams)

^ // numbers totally made up and probably way the fark off


I bet those would be some tasty cookies, though, at 250 calories each.
 
2014-02-26 06:15:44 PM

DerAppie: MyRandomName: DerAppie: MyRandomName: theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?

Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.

No, they are counting on the inability of the common American to care enough to create a spreadsheet to make sense of the various portion sizes.

Just use a reasonable baseline. Add a standard amount for comparison purposes. Right next to the "per serving" it could say "per 100 grams" or whatever amount is chosen.

What is a reasonable baseline? Are you advocating federally mandated bowl sizes? Per weight is useless if you don't have a scale around. How much does a Twinkie weigh?

Don't be daft. Like I said, it can be right next to the "per serving". And it isn't about knowing exactly how much calories etc you get, but about being able to compare the nutritional value of different products without needing to doing maths (with really crappy values), while remembering 20 previously calculated values, in the store. By using an equal weight of product to give the value for, people can simply hold the containers next to each other without needing to compensate for differences in serving size.

Besides, hardly anyone measures the amount of peanut butter they take out of the jar so why be overly worried about specific values for a serving?


Meat - Serving about the size of a pack of cards is 2-3 oz
veggies - serving about the size of your fist.
starch - smaller serving than your veggies.
 
2014-02-26 06:23:10 PM
scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2014-02-26 06:32:33 PM

Skyfrog: [scontent-b-ord.xx.fbcdn.net image 487x604]


I hate that in products.

Although I don't really think anyone that cares hasn't noticed it.  You aren't suddenly going to have someone say "I shouldn't have this, it has (I think it says 6 servings?) 840 calories and 780mg of sodium", but maybe it would.
 
2014-02-26 07:04:59 PM

untaken_name:

I bet those would be some tasty cookies, though, at 250 calories each.


Well, considering the fact that pure fat is 9 calories per gram, and these theoretical cookies are 10 calories per gram, I've theorized cookies that are fatter than fat.
 
2014-02-26 07:12:29 PM

lordargent: untaken_name:

I bet those would be some tasty cookies, though, at 250 calories each.

Well, considering the fact that pure fat is 9 calories per gram, and these theoretical cookies are 10 calories per gram, I've theorized cookies that are fatter than fat.


Oh. My. God.

static.fjcdn.com
 
2014-02-26 07:35:32 PM

meat0918: efgeise: FoxKelfonne: ecmoRandomNumbers: FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")

Everything that's "part of a balanced breakfast" is a giant glucose bomb for the morning. My pancreas hurts just thinking about it.

Right? Generally they show the cereal (always a full bowl too), buttered toast, milk (aside from what's in the cereal), OJ, and fruit. Sometimes there's even an egg in there somewhere. Who are these people eating these massive "balanced" breakfasts, and do they weigh 600 lbs?

I think the idea is to have your largest meal be breakfast, and your smallest be dinner. Following that, I can see how it might be considered "balanced."

Works when you need the fuel to be out working hard, manual labor, like the pastoral image of the hard working American farmer.

Sitting in an office, not so much.

I remember reading in a Filipino cookbook that in the Philippines, in the section about breakfast foods that an American might want to take care preparing some of the breakfasts, because the heaviest meal of the day is usually breakfast, with dinner being a much lighter affair


That's fair about the sedentary lifestyle we mostly lead, actually.
 
2014-02-26 07:41:53 PM

vudukungfu: Here's an idea.
personal responsibility.
Flame on.


That exactly what nutrition labels are for. So that you can know what's in the food you buy and then you can decide what to eat accordingly.
 
2014-02-26 08:14:43 PM

MyRandomName: theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?

Umm... the information is supplied. They are just counting on the inability of Americans to read and multiply.


The non-readers seem to be multiplying rather quickly.
 
2014-02-26 08:28:02 PM

theorellior: Where are the free-market libertarians to complain that this is unnecessary regulation and consumers should just trust the food companies to supply this information?


You just got here one post too soon.

Remember folks, its totally cool for companies to trick people cuz murica got perosnl sponsbillity
 
2014-02-26 08:50:03 PM
I was in Europe about 7 years ago and the packaging showed calories (kcal) per serving and per package. I thought that was a good idea. I also liked the water bottles with the one way valves to prevent backwash, though I'm not sure that was was a regulation.

Actually they did a whole lot of little things smarter than in the USA.
 
2014-02-26 08:59:20 PM

FoxKelfonne: I think the shadiest thing they do is with breakfast cereals. Every single cereal box in the cereal aisle (except shredded wheat, I think) has a calorie value of 100-130 cals per serving, but the serving size ends up usually being something like 3/4 cup that would by way below what any normal person would pour into their bowl for breakfast. So they see "Oh, only 100 calories for breakfast!", pour a nice big bowl, and end up with nearly a 500 calorie breakfast once they pour milk into the thing. (And that's without adding anything else that's usually pictured as "part of a balanced breakfast")


I think salad dressing is the shadiest. The serving size is generally 2 tablespoons. That aint much even for a side salad.
 
2014-02-26 09:17:28 PM
Learn to multiply and divide you lazy dummies.
 
2014-02-26 09:26:41 PM
BUH HUR HUR! FARTBONGO'S EARS ARE BIG! HUR HUR HUR!

www.prunejuicemedia.com
 
Displayed 50 of 60 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report