

One Bowl = 2 Servings. F.D.A. May Fix That. - mikek
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/business/06portion.html

======
luminarious
What's with the confusing system? Maybe it's from growing up with it, but here
in Europe the system makes a lot more sense: all foods specify the calories/
other food info per 100 grams. This makes it easy to compare different foods.
Since the weight of the pack is also given in grams, it's really basic level
math to figure out how many calories eating half a pack of something gives.

~~~
ComputerGuru
I disagree. How many grams of Cereal did you just pour into that bowl? How
many Chex Mix grams did you just chomp down? How many grams of Tang did you
mix in with that water?

Sure, using grams is great for comparison... But getting the average person to
find out how many grams of xxx they just consumed, _unless_ it is easily
quantifiable as "all/half/quarter of the total amount" is pretty hard.

~~~
m_eiman
The best use of the "per 100g" version is that you can compare different
brands of the same kind of food. If you're buying breakfast cereal the
interesting question is which cereal suits you best, not if it contains more
energy per 100g than butter (if it does, it's unlikely to be healthy).

~~~
ars
Except for water and fiber all cereals have almost exactly the same amount of
calories per 100g.

So really, all you should check for is the fiber content.

(And it's physically impossible to make a cereal with more energy per 100g
than butter.)

To a good approximation ALL foods have about the same amount of calories per
100g. The only real difference is how much water. (And how much fat, but in
normal food that doesn't vary so very much from food to food. Water varies a
lot.)

This system just encourages manufacturers to add water, (and salt) to their
food.

Much better would be "fiber per 100 [kilo]calories", "percent of calories from
protein", and "percent - NOT number - of calories from fat".

------
rarrrrrr
The truly deceitful food industry trick here isn't with calories but trans
fats.

The FDA allows food companies to round down and say "0 grams of trans fat" on
the label if the product contains less than 0.5 grams _per serving_.

So food companies proudly say "0g trams fat" on the front of a package, even
though it might be loaded with heart poisoning hydrogenated oils.

Unsurprisingly, FDA requirements are fairly relaxed in this area compared to
Canada and the EU.

~~~
bshep
I have a PAM non-stick cooking spray that says '0g of fat' and has something
like 430 servings, a serving is a 1/3second spray, something tells me that 1/3
second spray is what has less than 0.5g of fat and hence why they used that
number.

EDIT: As someone mentioned below, wolfram alpha has a good database. According
to that the can (5oz) has 112g of fat. By my math 112g/430servings =
0.26g/serving =/= 0g/serv

<http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pam+cooking+spray+5oz>

------
garyrichardson
Any one who has actually read a food label will realize that serving size !=
package size and for things like cereal my bowl != serving size.

It's hard to believe how touchy people are. Will people really take increased
serving sizes as a signal to eat more? Probably not. It won't change anything
for those who don't pay attention to calories/serving sizes nutrition. People
who count calories will shit a brick and hopefully start eating less processed
foods.

This is all really pointless anyways. If the FDA really wanted to address
obesity they need to take a hard stance against processed foods and high
fructose corn syrup. That will never happen because food companies will lobby
to protect their empires and a large portion of Americans can't afford to eat
real food.

~~~
BearOfNH
It would be nice if there were a nutrition label for the entire package. Until
then I can use Wolfram Alpha, which has quite a good database.

And I agree with you on the fructose. It is bad stuff, at least in the
concentrations found in processed food.

It is a bit comical that the EPA is raising holy hell over carbon dioxide
while the FDA turns a blind eye to HFCS.

~~~
likpok
Citation? I've heard lots of people talk of the dangers of HFCS, but I've
never even heard of a scientific explanation, let alone seen a study.

~~~
jerf
"Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of
Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that
fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the
obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical
School for the Public": <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM>

~~~
natrius
If you've watched the video then you know this already, but for those who
haven't: For most intents and purposes, HFCS is biologically identical to
table sugar, except it tastes a little sweeter. Sucrose (table sugar) is a
glucose molecule bonded to a fructose molecule. HFCS is roughly half fructose
as well. The problem is overconsumption of sugar and consumption of sugar
unaccompanied by fiber. Watch the video.

~~~
jerf
Yup, I figured I'd just let the video speak for itself. It doesn't support the
idea that HFCS is _especially_ evil in the way that, say, transfats are, but
it's still bad enough for you that the presenter is willing to call it a
"poison", and he backs that up reasonably well even if you aren't _quite_
willing to go that far.

~~~
lena
But it is important to note the presenter calls normal sugar a poison as well
because they're both high in fructose and devoid of nutrients.

------
solutionyogi
I don't understand the obsession with the nutrition labels. And if you really
think that nutrition labels can help fight obesity in any way, you are
dreaming. FDA thinks that people are stupid and need to tell us what we should
eat. Show me one man/woman whom, while munching away on big bag of chips OR
pint of ice cream, doesn't know that chips/ice cream is not going to help
his/her waistline. I don't know of any. I think everyone knows that
vegetables/fruits are vastly superior to processed food. But we still eat the
crap which tastes good and no regulations FDA can think of, will change that.

Here's a riddle. The nutrition labeling became law in 1990
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Labeling_and_Educatio...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition_Labeling_and_Education_Act)).
Do you think obesity has increased OR decreased after 1990?

On a side note, I am from India and we don't have this nutrition label
requirement and India doesn't have obesity problems. It's about what and how
much people eat, nutrition label ain't gonna change it.

~~~
jrockway
_Here's a riddle. The nutrition labeling became law in 1990_

Correlation does not imply causation. The cause of the "obesity epidemic" is
overeating of nutrient-poor processed foods. These foods exist because the
food industry needs to show its shareholders that 12%-per-year growth, but the
population is not growing that quickly, and it's hard to get people to eat 12%
more carrots per year. The solution is to sell less nutrients for the same
amount of money, the side effect is that people eat more calories than they
should, and balloon into the current problem. Food labeling is completely
irrelevant, because the people that become obese eat what tastes good, not
what a label tells them is healthy.

I find food labels to be very useful. Sometimes things have surprisingly high
fat content, and the label points this out to people who care. (Ever cook your
shrimp in coconut milk and notice how delicious it is? It's because the
coconut milk has 20 grams of fat in 2 tablespoons. Bet you wouldn't have
realized that without the label.)

You're right that it's obvious that a pint of ice cream or a bag of chips is
unhealthy. The labels are for the cases when it's not as clear. There is a lot
of junk-ish food that is actually pretty healthy, and there is a lot of
healthy-seeming food that is actually very unhealthy. The labeling allows you
to identify these special cases.

 _On a side note, I am from India and we don't have this nutrition label
requirement and India doesn't have obesity problems. It's about what and how
much people eat, nutrition label ain't gonna change it._

I think this is because a large majority of India's population can't afford to
overeat processed food. Give everyone more money, and you'll see the same
problems as in the US.

------
jseifer
"Officials say such labeling will be voluntary, but the agency may set rules
to prevent companies from highlighting the good things about their products,
like a lack of trans fats, while ignoring the bad, like a surfeit of unhealthy
saturated fats."

That one is pretty bad because saturated fats are actually healthy.

------
dwwoelfel
Who are these people that can't do the simple math required to convert from
serving size to the amount they consume? If they are too stupid to know that
(3 servings per can) X (130 calories per serving) = 390 calories per can, then
they are too stupid to count calories. Of course, counting calories isn't that
smart to begin with. It's quality, not quantity, that matters.

~~~
DTrejo
Lazy ≠ stupid.

~~~
dwwoelfel
The people this new regulation seeks to help are the ones that count calories,
but can't multiply serving size by calories per serving. People that count
calories aren't lazy in this context, so we're left with the subset of people
who are too stupid to multiply. My comment demonstrated that this subset is
the empty set.

