Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Guardian)   Photos that illustrate what the FDA's new serving sizes actually look like. Enjoy your tenth of a bagel   (theguardian.com) divider line 147
    More: Stupid, serving sizes, FDA, nutrition label  
•       •       •

15080 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2014 at 3:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-28 04:49:45 PM  
Personally, I think serving sizes should work something like this:

* Any processed, ready-to-eat (or just add water, just heat, whatever) thing sold in an unsealable container: One serving size is the whole container

* Anything else: Set up a Nielsen-style survey of people's eating habits over say ~1,000 households. Record how much is eaten of any given item per person, per day. Average the results, hey presto -- there is your serving size. Rinse and repeat annually based on the previous year's results. Not enough data for a given food? Use the serving size of the closest food in the database, nutritionally speaking.

* Restaurant food: Nutrition info isn't calculated from your specially hand-prepared item made specifically for testing. Ten samples are chosen randomly and anonymously (samples are taken from random branches of your restaurant chain and ordered as if you are a normal member of the public), then the results averaged.

* No rounding down of any bad-for-you figures (eg. 0.478g of fat is 0.5g or 1g, not 0g)

* No rounding up of any good-for-you figures (eg. 0.27g of fiber is not 0.5g or 1g, it is 0.2g or 0g)

* No bundling of ingredients (it's not "spices" or "flavorings", it is the actual names of the items you put in there)

* No beautifying / rebranding of ingredient names where they are not significantly nutritionally different from existing ingredients (it's not "Valencia oranges", it's "oranges"; it's not "Chilean sea bass", it's "Patagonian toothfish".)

* No using misleading terminology (eg: It's not 98% fat-free, it's 2% fat.)

* No using misleading references (eg. if your product wouldn't ordinarily contain fat, no labeling your product "a fat-free food" -- we all know that soda is fat-free and lard is sugar-free, thanks very much.)

* No misleading product photography (ads must show the actual foodstuff in question, it must be taken as a random, anonymous sample from actual production, and it may not be "dressed / styled" or the photo retouched locally. (eg. you see the poorly-assembled abortion McDonalds actually sells you, not the puffy, fluffy, colorful and juicy-looking fake creation you see now.)

Pros:
- You'd have realistic serving sizes for the first time ever.
- As serving sizes change over time, so would the nutritional info, reflecting current behavior
- Level playing field for manufacturers

Cons (from the manufacturer's perspective):
- Expensive survey (but adding just one cent to the cost of each processed food item sold would cover this many, many times over)
- Cost of changing packaging (but in our computerized, digital world, realistically this could be set to update automatically.
- Sales of many processed foods would tank once misleading claims were removed and people could see the truth about what they were eating
- It will never happen, ever.

/this is all a pipe dream
 
2014-02-28 04:50:45 PM  

busy chillin': Activity level has to come into this some where. I knew a body builder guy that ate 9 meals a day and needed something like 12,000* calories a day to fuel his metabolism.

Exercise.

*talkin' out of ass, but I remember being floored by the number he said. I guess I could google it...nope don't care.


Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used.  For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.
 
2014-02-28 04:51:59 PM  

Jekylman: Queensowntalia: kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

1/1000th of a Fark.

Also known as a Gredunza

\since we're redefining serving sizes anyway


HEY!

That 1/1004th of a FARK.
 
2014-02-28 05:00:24 PM  
How about someone in power on either side of the aisle stops spending over $10B per year in subsidies for the express purpose of flooding the market with the cheap crap we're eating ourselves to death with?

No campaign contributions in that?  Oh, okay.
 
2014-02-28 05:03:27 PM  

Arkanaut: What's a bagle?


It's the British spelling.
 
2014-02-28 05:03:59 PM  
Well, this thread went to hell faster than normal.

IMO, when you have a population getting much heavier from lousy diets, perhaps it's not best to adjust the 'serving size' to encourage this.

My generation tended to be a lot less heavy for various reasons, but top most was the very simple fact that we were not overwhelmed with snack and fast foods. They existed, but not in the incredible amounts like today. Nor was TV full of advertising encouraging us to gobble down every bit of delicious garbage displayed.

In 1965, no one in my town had ever heard of frozen pizza. 2014 and the grocery stores have whole freezers devoted to assorted versions of the stuff.
 
2014-02-28 05:05:31 PM  

Wangiss: How about someone in power on either side of the aisle stops spending over $10B per year in subsidies for the express purpose of flooding the market with the cheap crap we're eating ourselves to death with?

No campaign contributions in that?  Oh, okay.


Blech, whole can of worms being opened, but...

Most countries that produce food subsidize food production.  This is to ensure that there's food.  Believe it or not there's actually only a few edible products that can be stored in a raw state - wheat, feed corn, barley...  Because without food society crumbles.

Anyhow it's really up to you to control what you decide to shove down your gullet.  If you decide to eat too many calories of your favorite organic whatever BS food, you're still going to get fat(ter).
 
2014-02-28 05:07:27 PM  

Shazam999: Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used. For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.


Exercise is not over-rated.

You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.

So, you also have to deduct the calories not eaten while exercising and to exercise to the calories used while exercising.
 
2014-02-28 05:09:10 PM  

Misch: ReapTheChaos: Nothing on breakfast cereal? That's the main one I'd like to see standardized. As it stands they list a serving sizes of 1/2, 3/4, 2/3 and 1 cup, try comparing that while standing in the grocery store.

Cereals are sold by weight, not by volume. The volume is approximate. There's always a gram measurement.

Get a kitchen scale, it's your best friend.


I was talking about serving sizes, not package content. Serving size is measured by volume, like 1/2 or 3/4 cup. You can have two boxes of cereal, each listing the calories per serving, yet the serving size on each is different. Makes it a pain to compare one against the other.
 
2014-02-28 05:10:00 PM  
Beagle thread?

pizzaonabeagle.files.wordpress.com


/hot like the pizza hopefully isn't
 
2014-02-28 05:10:55 PM  

kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?


It remains an all you can eat buffet.
 
2014-02-28 05:11:13 PM  

Rik01: Well, this thread went to hell faster than normal.

IMO, when you have a population getting much heavier from lousy diets, perhaps it's not best to adjust the 'serving size' to encourage this.

My generation tended to be a lot less heavy for various reasons, but top most was the very simple fact that we were not overwhelmed with snack and fast foods. They existed, but not in the incredible amounts like today. Nor was TV full of advertising encouraging us to gobble down every bit of delicious garbage displayed.

In 1965, no one in my town had ever heard of frozen pizza. 2014 and the grocery stores have whole freezers devoted to assorted versions of the stuff.


Just because something happened together does not mean one caused the other. By the same argument, you can argue that it is cell phones causing people to get heavy because there are so many cell phones now whereas  in 1965, nobody had heard of cellphones.
 
2014-02-28 05:14:49 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: Why is it stupid? I think it's a good idea to increase the serving size of the daily nutritional facts to reflect what's actually being eaten.

A lot of folks don;t actually read the quatity per serving portion/daily but rather go straight to the nutritional facts per serving which gives a distorted and often much less numerical value.

I guess subby must be a 6 footer and weighs 100 ibs wet to WANT to actually think he's eating much less than what he actually ate.


Don't manufactures make the serving size so that the trans fat is 0.5g so that they can put 0g in the trans fat entry.

There are so many things with hydrogenated cottonseed oil or hydrogenated palm kernel oil in the ingredient list and then 0g in the trans fat section.
 
2014-02-28 05:15:11 PM  

mr0x: Shazam999: Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used. For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.

Exercise is not over-rated.

You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.

So, you also have to deduct the calories not eaten while exercising and to exercise to the calories used while exercising.


Don't forget the calories consumed by your jaw moving while eating.
 
2014-02-28 05:16:21 PM  

hitnrun74: Avocado 0 calories
Serving size 1 Avocado
Serving suggestion: place in garbage, acquire proper food, read nutrition information and eat accordingly.


Hey, avocado is my favorite fruit.
 
2014-02-28 05:18:21 PM  
mr0x:
Just because something happened together does not mean one caused the other. By the same argument, you can argue that it is cell phones causing people to get heavy because there are so many cell phones now whereas  in 1965, nobody had heard of cellphones.

Great, now I'm going to eat my cell phone tonight.
 
2014-02-28 05:18:48 PM  

FirstNationalBastard: Jekylman: Queensowntalia: kronicfeld: What is the new serving size for Internet pedantry?

1/1000th of a Fark.

Also known as a Gredunza

\since we're redefining serving sizes anyway

HEY!

That 1/1004th of a FARK.


IMPERIALIST DOG! You'll take the great and most glorious metric serving sizes and like it!
 
2014-02-28 05:22:53 PM  

TwistedIvory: Theaetetus: Since when did anyone say that a tenth of a bagel was the entire portion size? I think you're reading something neither Subby nor I said.

Sounds pretty much like what the headline says, to me. That's definitely how I read it.

Theaetetus: As you note, the article said that the portion size was one half of a bagel plus one tenth of the other half. I.e. to eat a proper serving, you would have to, at some point, identify a tenth of a bagel half.

Or do basic math. "Let's see, serving size says 55g, but this bagel weighs 95g. Therefore I'll eat about half."
However, that's problematic if the label doesn't identify the weight of each unit in the wrapper. I get that, that's a problem if you can't just intuit how 55g feels. In the US we have "servings per container," which I think is a decent method of approximation. Nobody is going to cut their bagel halves into tenths. That's a really silly assertion (much like it's silly to have an unrealistic portion size on the nutrition info).

Theaetetus: Yes, you're being pedantic, and you didn't read either Subby's statement nor my criticism correctly, and inferred something different. So, good jorb with the hypocrisy.

Actually, I was really trying to give us a diplomatic way out. I was trying to find a middle ground ("there are problems, I understand what they are and why they are problems but hooray, they're being addressed") so that we didn't have to go back and forth anymore. This was the cue to just say, "Ah hah, chap, I smell what you've been stepping in!" and then we chuckle a bit amongst ourselves and go on our merry ways.

So, yeah, mission failed.


Favorited for not being a bullying ass.
 
2014-02-28 05:25:38 PM  

naughtyrev: Where the hell did they find Bartle's and James wine coolers at?


The only post in this thread worth quoting.
 
2014-02-28 05:28:47 PM  

Arkanaut: What's a bagle?


My thought exactly.
 
2014-02-28 05:29:18 PM  
IT'S A WALK OUT!

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-28 05:32:11 PM  
You know... I know this has nothing to do with nothing but I keep getting drawn back to that picture of the Palin-ator up there. She is looking more and more like the white trash crackheads that used to skitter around my old hood. Like... she isn't my favorite person in the world but is she... um... ok? Seriously not looking healthy and her behavior is becoming increasingly erratic. Even by her standards.

Kind of frightening there was a real chance of her possibly becoming POTUS in a not so alternate universe.
 
2014-02-28 05:37:25 PM  
Loxley and Bagel! You can't miss!

mimg.ugo.com
 
2014-02-28 05:53:42 PM  

mr0x: You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.


I can jog in place really fast while eating lots of things.  Probably not soup, but chips and cookies sure. I've actually done this once or twice when I got insanely hungry while exercising (and one time my weight still went down the next day)

And eating right before exercising isn't much of a problem unless you're going to the extreme with your exercise.  Not a problem for the government recommended 30 minutes of moderate activity a day.
 
2014-02-28 06:05:58 PM  

Shazam999: Wangiss: How about someone in power on either side of the aisle stops spending over $10B per year in subsidies for the express purpose of flooding the market with the cheap crap we're eating ourselves to death with?

No campaign contributions in that?  Oh, okay.

Blech, whole can of worms being opened, but...

Most countries that produce food subsidize food production.  This is to ensure that there's food.  Believe it or not there's actually only a few edible products that can be stored in a raw state - wheat, feed corn, barley...  Because without food society crumbles.

Anyhow it's really up to you to control what you decide to shove down your gullet.  If you decide to eat too many calories of your favorite organic whatever BS food, you're still going to get fat(ter).


All completely true, but you and I are being coerced into spending a few dollars a month that goes to making more corn than everyone combined actually wants to eat. That creates an opportunity cost penalty to anyone who wants to manufacture food with anything other than the lowest nutritional-value foods in history. Why is $50 worth of spending power forced from the average taxpayer per year that (1) they could use to buy healthier food, thereby subverting (but certainly not negating) your personal responsibility argument; and (2) goes to make unhealthy food cheaper instead of healthy food?

Republican? Great. Shrink government or at least get those big government cronies making something healthy cheaper instead of corn syrup.
Democrat? Great. Move some of that subsidy money to smaller, less privileged farm regions targeted in blue states or with historically disadvantaged populations that want to grow quinoa and kale.
Statist? Great. It's your moral responsibility to make sure that the government is helping instead of harming all the people that corporations are fattening up.
Libertarian? Great. I don't even need to tell you anything.

It's stupid to do what we're doing, or if you disagree we're at least doing it in a way that seems to be inarguably detrimental. I don't see the advantage of subsidizing one of the main sources of diabetes and obesity.
 
2014-02-28 06:17:44 PM  
mr0x:

You cannot eat while you are exercising.
Also, you usually don't eat a few hours before exercising.


msnbcmedia3.msn.com
 
2014-02-28 06:59:28 PM  
If the governmental control-freaks have their way, we'd only be allowed to eat carefully measured amounts the human-equivalent of those boring  little dried nuggets that we feed our pets - you know. Iams, Hill's Science diet etc.

And we'll be dying of boredom.
 
2014-02-28 07:06:58 PM  

LemSkroob: Man, that was a sad looking bagel.


This is what real bagels look like.

[gothamist.com image 640x479]


/Hint: real bagels don't come pre-bagged.
//And you can only get good ones in NY
///Because we have the best jews


www.zingermansdeli.com

Not ALL of them
 
2014-02-28 07:12:39 PM  

lostcat: So nothing has really changed. The FDA has just made it slightly easier for people who can't do basic math to figure out the nutritional value of what they are eating.

Who am I kidding. "People who can't do basic math," is about 80% of the US.

Carry on, FDA.


Or saves time for the hurried parent rushing through the supermarket.  Or hurried anyone really.  Or kids, learning about nutrition.

If we're gonna require nutritional labeling, we should do it in a way that makes a tiny bit of sense.

I know, the horror, the horror.
 
2014-02-28 07:14:02 PM  
I don't really watch calories but have to watch sodium and I find the variable serving sizes a real pain.  This can of soup is 2.5 servings while this other one that is the same size from another manufacturer is 4 servings.  Try to guess the relative calories or salt content without a calculator and be my guess.  And don't get me started on why a can of soup is more than one bloody serving as most people eat the whole thing.

I spend the time cooking more to be sure not to use prepared foods as all of them use enough sodium to kill a horse.
 
2014-02-28 07:16:11 PM  
static.guim.co.uk

I drink my coffee black like everyone should, but the old standard for sweetened coffee wasn't even a full damn cup's worth.

Other than the Yogurt Lobby somehow having pull at the FDA,

/imokaywiththis.jpg
 
2014-02-28 07:28:23 PM  
Bagle indeed

i1.ytimg.com

\hot like Britta
 
2014-02-28 07:29:30 PM  

vernonFL: Random Anonymous Blackmail: How many calories does a bottle of vodak have in it... the numbers are too damn blurry.

Vodka is about 100 calories per ounce. So for me that is 300 calories per "serving"


Don't calories tend to be pretty much inline with proof of the liquor?

/uses zero calorie mixers
//people still drink wine coolers? I don't think I've even seen those in the store
 
2014-02-28 08:07:55 PM  
I can`t respect an article that calls pop tarts `pastries`, doesn`t say `bagel` but instead says `Toufayan bagel`, in one sentence says "Forget serving sizes and go for the halves or fourths method instead, like a normal person" and then uses a weird serving size (One cup is about one and a half Chobani containers)

Sounded too much like an advert for stuff.
 
2014-02-28 08:11:13 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: [static.guim.co.uk image 620x372]

I drink my coffee black like everyone should, but the old standard for sweetened coffee wasn't even a full damn cup's worth.

Other than the Yogurt Lobby somehow having pull at the FDA,

/imokaywiththis.jpg


That`s espresso, right? You`re allowed that much espresso?
 
2014-02-28 08:27:55 PM  
I am so glad I just eat ketogenic; it comes with built-in 'you need no more food' triggers. I only look at nutrition labels for carbohydrate count anyhow.

/eat fat; get skinny
//fark the 'low fat' and 'whole grains' bullshiat
///down 45 lbs in 5 months - best  blood test results ever.
 
pla
2014-02-28 09:23:18 PM  
maram500 : I get that you're being sarcastic here, but what people don't get is that that Mega Jug wasn't meant for one person to consume solo. It was meant for a family.

I get that you're being pedantic here, but really - No, it wasn't.
 
2014-02-28 10:08:51 PM  
lets just get this out of the way: pop-tarts are disgusting
 
2014-02-28 10:20:27 PM  

gweilo8888: Personally, I think serving sizes should work something like this:

* Any processed, ready-to-eat (or just add water, just heat, whatever) thing sold in an unsealable container: One serving size is the whole container

* Anything else: Set up a Nielsen-style survey of people's eating habits over say ~1,000 households. Record how much is eaten of any given item per person, per day. Average the results, hey presto -- there is your serving size. Rinse and repeat annually based on the previous year's results. Not enough data for a given food? Use the serving size of the closest food in the database, nutritionally speaking.

* Restaurant food: Nutrition info isn't calculated from your specially hand-prepared item made specifically for testing. Ten samples are chosen randomly and anonymously (samples are taken from random branches of your restaurant chain and ordered as if you are a normal member of the public), then the results averaged.

* No rounding down of any bad-for-you figures (eg. 0.478g of fat is 0.5g or 1g, not 0g)

* No rounding up of any good-for-you figures (eg. 0.27g of fiber is not 0.5g or 1g, it is 0.2g or 0g)

* No bundling of ingredients (it's not "spices" or "flavorings", it is the actual names of the items you put in there)

* No beautifying / rebranding of ingredient names where they are not significantly nutritionally different from existing ingredients (it's not "Valencia oranges", it's "oranges"; it's not "Chilean sea bass", it's "Patagonian toothfish".)

* No using misleading terminology (eg: It's not 98% fat-free, it's 2% fat.)

* No using misleading references (eg. if your product wouldn't ordinarily contain fat, no labeling your product "a fat-free food" -- we all know that soda is fat-free and lard is sugar-free, thanks very much.)

* No misleading product photography (ads must show the actual foodstuff in question, it must be taken as a random, anonymous sample from actual production, and it may not be "dressed / styled" or the photo retouched locally. (eg. you see the poorly-assembled abortion McDonalds actually sells you, not the puffy, fluffy, colorful and juicy-looking fake creation you see now.)

Pros:
- You'd have realistic serving sizes for the first time ever.
- As serving sizes change over time, so would the nutritional info, reflecting current behavior
- Level playing field for manufacturers

Cons (from the manufacturer's perspective):
- Expensive survey (but adding just one cent to the cost of each processed food item sold would cover this many, many times over)
- Cost of changing packaging (but in our computerized, digital world, realistically this could be set to update automatically.
- Sales of many processed foods would tank once misleading claims were removed and people could see the truth about what they were eating
- It will never happen, ever.

/this is all a pipe dream


Id be OK with this.
 
2014-02-28 10:58:36 PM  
Yeah they need to fix that stuff, all around. How the hell am I supposed to eat 47 servings of vegetables a day? Oh, a serving is 4 peas, I see.
 
2014-03-01 12:03:25 AM  

Shazam999: busy chillin': Activity level has to come into this some where. I knew a body builder guy that ate 9 meals a day and needed something like 12,000* calories a day to fuel his metabolism.

Exercise.

*talkin' out of ass, but I remember being floored by the number he said. I guess I could google it...nope don't care.

Exercise is overrated. A 5K run for me amounts to about 500 calories used.  For the average person it's not enough to counteract the 3000-4000 calories they're eating daily.

/ Thank you girl with the nice tits that tried to keep up with me yesterday night.



Exercise also raises the basal metabolic rate, so you burn a lot more calories than from just the exercise itself.  Pro athletes burn a ridiculous amount of calories because of this.  Muscle mass (especially fast twitch) will burn a lot of calories simply by being there.
 
2014-03-01 01:40:14 AM  

DubtodaIll: I was told when I was in grade school that a 1 serving is about the size of a deck of cards.


That's actually useful.
 
2014-03-01 01:42:19 AM  

vodka: lets just get this out of the way: pop-tarts are disgusting


Shut you dam mouth, you anti-tart.
 
2014-03-01 02:08:58 AM  
Here's a radical solution to the nutrition labeling problem:  stop eating stuff that requires nutrition labeling.

Seriously, our obesity problems stem from people putting a higher priority on their time than on their health.
 
2014-03-01 02:42:42 AM  

WelldeadLink: Bareefer Obonghit: Bagle? I assume you meant Beagle. And yes I will; this is a stupendous Chinese restaurant. Good day.

[media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com image 280x210]


Why has Snoopy been fatally flattened by a giant turd?

Also: who could eat anything made to look like Snoopy?  I couldn't even cut into it.
 
2014-03-01 02:45:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: I just don't understand Michelle Obama's hatred for kids with diabetes. Think of all the cash this charity will miss out on when sodas can't have Serving Size: MEGA JUG

[3.bp.blogspot.com image 458x561]


"Juvenile" Diabetes refers to Type I Diabetes. That's the kind kids get (like I myself did) when a random auto-immune fluke causes the cells in the pancreas to produce insulin to be destroyed. 

It has absolute nothing to do with the obesity-related, overeating-induced, Type II Diabetes, which is where you develop insulin resistance from doing things like guzzling a gallon of sugary soda. 

As a Type I Diabetic, the conflation of these two is a perpetual annoyance. I've had more than one person state or imply something to the effect that it's my fault for having diabetes, when this person has no understanding of the difference between Type I and Type II. 

There's no reason my disease, which totally strikes at random and without any lifestyle factors, should get a bad reputation or lose out on funding because of the lard-asses who brought it on themselves.
 
2014-03-01 03:45:13 AM  
Y'ᗩᒪᒪ ᔕOᑌᑎᗪ ᖴᗩT.
 
Displayed 47 of 147 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report