In a
move that is sure to raise some eyebrows in the food industry, the FDA is now looking to change standard serving sizes to accurately mirror average consumption. While this may only apply to foods such as chips, cookies, breakfast cereals and ice cream, it could potentially change American buying habits and, in the long run, eating habits.
Why are they doing this? They will soon be encouraging manufacturers to post nutritional information, including calorie counts, on the front of packages, suggesting that people will think twice before guzzling down foods that may be harmful to their health. Like the recent movement in New York City that pushed fast-food chains to post calories on their menus, the FDA aims to bring greater public awareness about how much they are actually eating, and how it can be avoided by shunning high-calorie, low-nutrition foods.
What does this mean? This is all part of a huge overhaul on the anti-obesity campaign and the FDA's effectiveness. The last time serving sizes were even looked at was in 2005, when the administration said it was "considering changes." Now, with Michelle Obama's recent campaign fighting child obesity underway, it appears that the FDA is stepping up to the (dinner) plate.
What do you think? Should the FDA change serving sizes to reflect accurate nutritional information? What will this mean for you as a consumer?
Recommend
Comments (37)
this is probably one of the only good things the FDA will ever do.
I think people are responsible for what they eat. If they want to be gluttonous, they will be.
It's gonna suck for the people who actually eat the current serving sizes.
They should let the serving sizes be. Let bigger people know how much bigger they are than the size of a healthy adult (bring in the nutritionist please).I don't want them to change serving sizes! That will throw my Daily Plate off. :(
This is a great idea! Because seriously, who only eats 2 oreos? or saves some of their cheez its for later?
good call. it's a crime for the industry to see what's happening and not do anything about it. if this change doesn't work, then at least they'll know they need an alternative.
YES! Great move, finally some action on the part of our government who has been funding products so bad for our health and hiding labeling from the consumer and with such loose restrictions on our food production that once again, we have a huge E Coli break out.... seriously FDA, Obama's administration seems to be getting your head on straight.
This is a great move because, honestly, even I, who looks at the nutritional label of everything I buy (all parts) get confused and aggravated when a can of soup has a serving size of a 7/12ths the amount in it! It's like they are making things difficult for us (which they probably are)... once I finally figure out the right calorie count, its onto having to do math for the sugar and fat etc.... and I'm a conscious eater so I can't imagine the headache for the mom who's at the store with her three kids...
although for some people this may turn out to be beneficial, and i'm sure that there will definitely be some individuals that rethink their eating habits due to this, i feel as though there are way too many overweight and obese people (not to mention people who are at a healthy weight, but are not truly healthy on the inside) who just don't care. they won't care if the nutrition facts are at the front of the box, the side of the box, the bottom of the box, or stamped on their forehead. some people will just continue eating the way they do regardless, and doing this will not change that.
I still think its kinda dumb to have to put nutrition facts on the front of the box...its already on the side or the back so why can't people look there? I know plenty of moms that do, especially if its cereal they usually check if the first ingredient is sugar, or at least my mom, step-mom and most of my friends' moms did when we were younger. Maybe they should stop focusing on how to make it easier and how to make it harder for people to be lazy.
@i_am_not_short@xanga - @burn_journal@xanga - Furthermore, I agree with many others that some people may continuing
eating as they do, but I think it is wrong for us to attribute that
right away because of laziness. I think a large part is contributed to
social welfare... most obese people also happen to be correlated with a
lower economic standing
(http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080207163807.htm)
Let's face it... eating healthy is pricey compared to eating
unhealthy.... not to mention that it's also more time consuming which
may be difficult for those of lower income. Not only to buy expensive
fresh vegetables (or even frozen which are pricier & often less
filling than tv dinners) but then to have the time to cook them,
prepare them, whatever. Again, if our government would stopped being a
pawn of the agribusiness giants and giving subsidies for high fructose
corn syrup and trans fats (partially hydrogenated -- ) and start
funding the things we need, everyone would probably be in a better
place. It is pricier to eat healthy, it just is, and so it is partially
our governments fault, for indulging in subsidies and corrupt politics
and the head former heads of agribusiness running the EPA and money
from big factory farms.... perhaps also for some laziness but I would
dare to say not mostly... it seems odd that most of America is just
naturally lazy than most other countries.
like.
I agree that putting nutrition info on the front of boxes isn't going to do much to help. Changing the serving sizes makes the nutrition info more realistic and perhaps easier to compute (especially for small containers that should be only one serving), but for the most part I can't believe that any labeling changes are going to change people's eating habits.
I lived in a low income family growing up and I'm thin. my mother is also thin. I think your environment might enable you to give into food temptations but you still hold responsibility for yourself. I think some people just don't have common sense. even without labels, eating 2 cookies versus 12 cookies or a half bag of chips with an ice cream sundae, is going to be fattening and lots of calories. or eating a hamburger and french fries with a diet soda
I know some obese people and I think the obesity problem might have to do with depression or other psychological stresses and eating is how they cope with it as their comfort food. then when they become obese, they think that there is no turning back and give up hope on themselves so they eat themselves to death. as with any addiction, they need more help than bigger calorie nutrition labels but it is a start.
well yeah, i definately think this is a good step. i mean, they can put percentages of macronutrients and energy per 'serving sizes', but when most people consume sizes larger than that without realizing they are doing that, they can grossly underestimate the amounts they're eating. so establishing realistic serving sizes and their content will def. make people more aware what they're eating. i say win!
@msnatalie27@xanga -
http://fatlossquickie.com/blog/the-cost-of-eating-junk-vs-eating-healthy/
http://stanford.wellsphere.com/healthy-living-article/why-cost-is-a-lame-excuse-for-eating-unhealthy-food/977876
thaaaat's funny...cause when you break it down, it seems as though healthy food and unhealthy food tend to be around the same price. it's not about the fact that many overweight and obese people are linked to a lower economic status, it's about what they choose to purchase with the little money that they do have. sure, you can attribute some of these to genes, i suppose, but in the end it's all about the effort and thought that you put into it.
I already have memorized the calories per serving of everything that is commonly found in a fridge and pantry, and now I am going to be brain fucked.
@burn_journal@xanga -
1. In reply to that second article, I've seen it myself and I dare to say that anyone in the world can make a blog and say "well I only spend xyz on food, why can't THEY?"... there are way to many factors to control for in a personal narrative story, I think we need to compare hard study based evidence where the results are statistically significant... which you can't do looking at one person's opinion of their grocery shopping. Check out my link below also which IS a statistically significant study from a reputable college research university detailing an extensive study of calorie to calorie cost of junk food vs. unhealthy food (I tend to find that more believable than one person's luck a at a grocery store again, way too many factors to control for). The second article is the same... if we were actually conducting a debate on this, we'd been statistically significant evidence and studies. I could go to a store like this guy and do the same thing and get the opposite results depending on what I decide to pick up.
On why I beg to differ, you can find the evidence pretty easily around if not just yourself when walking through the grocery store (I myself noticed an increase in price once I finally decided to start buying more healthy wholesome foods rather than processed foods)
"Healthy eating really does cost more.
That’s what University of Washington researchers found when they
compared the prices of 370 foods sold at supermarkets in the Seattle
area. Calorie for calorie, junk foods not only cost less than fruits
and vegetables, but junk food prices also are less likely to rise as a
result of inflation. The findings, reported in the current issue of the
Journal of the American Dietetic Association, may help explain why the
highest rates of obesity are seen among people in lower-income groups." - http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/a-high-price-for-healthy-food/
Here's a link to a study noting how if junk food WAS more expensive, people would stop buying it (for low SES): "nontrivial pricing interventions
may have some measurable effects on Americans’ weight outcomes,
particularly for children and adolescents, low-SES populations, and
those most at risk for overweight."-http://www.milbank.org/870109.html
Plus, look at our public schools! We are only now, finally, with Lady Obama and other recent reforms (see film "Two Angry Mothers") getting some reform in what they sell us at school: $3 lunches for pizza hut pizza, pizza hut breadsticks, chick-fil-a, sodas, giant greasy cookies, nacho cheese and pretzels, tator tots, chicken nuggets... and I know this wasn't just my high school, it was my middle school, it was the other public schools my friends went to... its everywhere. And parents who don't have time/can't afford to make lunch for all their kids everyday, or who get the "free lunch plan" because of their low income... they can't even trust the government to not provide nutrition lacking crap to children... they see their friends eating pizza hut everyday, it begins to look normal, it is the only type of stuff they sell. Again, here are statistically significant, controlled for, studies, rather than personal accounts:
"The study found that 91 percent of high school vending machines sell at least some unhealthy foods.The study also found that a la carte food and beverage options were
served in 71 percent, 92 percent, and 93 percent of elementary, middle
and high schools, respectively. Almost 80 percent of these options were
determined to be unhealthful.In 75 percent of high schools, students weren't allowed to leave
campus during lunch. Yet less than half of all the elementary, middle,
or high schools surveyed had a "wellness policy" in place, or took
advantage of a government-sponsored fruit and vegetable program. And
less than 20 percent of schools offered children the option to buy a
low-fat lunch, the study found."- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/07/AR2008070700703.html
"Despite some improvements, U.S. school meal programs are still laden
with unhealthy fat, salt and sugar, nutrition experts contend.
dblclick('xxlA');
Students
Journal of the American Dietetic Associationalso have limited choices in foods available in vending machines, la carte in cafeterias, at school stores and snack bars and
for fund-raisers, they say in a series of articles in a supplement to
the February issue of the
.Echoing
these sentiments, a Chicago chef brought to the White House to cook for
the Obamas has said that too much of the food available at schools also
is high in additives and preservatives.Unhealthy eating at school, these food experts believe, is contributing to the surge in obesity rates among U.S. children.
he School Nutrition Dietary Assessment included information from 398
public schools in 130 districts across the United States, including
2,314 students in first through 12th grade during the 2004-05 school
year....But a mere 6 to 7 percent
of subsidized meals met all nutritional standards, the study found.
Most had too much saturated fat or fat overall, and not enough
calories. About 42 percent of the schools surveyed offered no fresh fruits or raw vegetables in their lunch programs. " - http://www-origin.usnews.com/health/family-health/childrens-health/articles/2009/03/04/school-lunches-too-fatty-and-sugary-critics-say.html
Plus, corporations are marketing unhealthy food to kids in public schools! Where their parents can't even shield them from it (Also check out Peter Jennings piece in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3kRgetwJ3I on how corporations market to children by bypassing the parents)
<li>Between 26.6 and 30.3 million public schoolstudents in the United States are exposed, in school, to marketing by
corporations that sell unhealthy foods.
<li>Corporations that sell unhealthy foods conduct the majority of the marketing found in schools. -http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/049657.htm
Our government is and has been funding the food that makes us ill and they wonder why we have such a healthcare problem. I agree that there are many reforms the individual has to do but the government is literally making this an uphill battle for those that can't afford the time or money.
I think it sounds like a genius idea because I once had a hurge arguement with my grandfather who insisted that since the calories said "130" that this meant that the entire box of ice cream only had 130 calories. I tried several times to show him that it was for only half a cup and I even measured out half a cup ... but no. He went on to consume about 2 cups of it without even blinking.
I think if someone were to see a much higher number on their foods, this would help them be a lot more mindful (hopefully). Then again, many people are obese because they just don't care to pay attention, so it might not work at all.
I think it'll suck! *o*
I honestly think it'll do nothing for the current obesity problem, it'll probably just make it worse >.>
However! When I'm lazy and just want to eat the whole can of whatever (or pre-packeged nonsense), sometimes I don't think and just look at the box (or whatever) and read the calories and nutritional facts and think "Ok, that's the damage then." when really, I consumed twice to three times the amount I read. x_x blah.... if people just payed attention, I don't think we'd have a need for this at all! XD
I think it may help to some extent, but what they really need to do is make the portions something most everyone can determine. For example 1/2 oz of whatever doesn't help me determine how much of it to eat. I don't own a food scale and even if i did thats annoying to have to do everytime I want to eat. and make the servings an even number. Like no joke, I just ate something that there were 2.5 servings in the container. make it an even number of servings, jeesh!
(sigh) I guess--if it helps. I forget which Administration did it--taking gasoline prices out of the formula for determining the wage-price index. I think it even happened before Y2K. It all sounds like cosmetic change--or the accountant cooking the books--or massaging the numbers. Or the Wizard of Oz ordering the citizens of the Emerald City to wear green spec's. Hah. I could probably come up with as many metaphors as the FDA comes up with serving sizes.
hell yea. im all for this 'what you see is what you get' on my food labels. As a food buyer I am constantly checking labels! And its really hard for me to be like okay well 80 calories out of 230 for 2.5 serving sizes comes from fat, but over here this one is the same product but 70 calories out of 200 for 2 serving sizes blah blah blah! AHHG..and then to top all that crap off they both say full of fiber and you have to compare & contrast and so on and so on.
Thats too much math. Im sorry but the only mathmatics at the grocery store i want to do is for my total. Anything else is too much time spent looking at a box of oatmeal bars. I understand 'but if u want to eat healthy you need to take your time' yea yea tell that to someone who cares. Those little 2.5 serving sizes are tricks!
@msnatalie27@xanga - yes, however there are ways to eat healthy on a budget of only about 250$ per person or less a month. I am one of those people. I don't qualify for food stamps ( i make more than $1000/month) so no help from uncle sam. I also don't belong to a food club (Costco or Sam's Club) However, I do buy whatever fruit or veggies are on sale or whenever they are in season at the farmer's market. I am aware that not all people are as lucky as I am to have a farmer's market around the corner from my house (5 blocks away!) but its worth a 20 minute drive if necessary. I also clip coupons when I get the chance. Even since I stopped getting the newspaper everyday, they're pretty easy to find and print out online. Remembering to shop the 'outer loop' at grocery stores is very helpful as you're less likely to pick up a bag of chips or cookies (in the middle, processed foods isle!). Sandwiches are a great and healthy alternative to McDonalds and they cost a bit less than a greasy, fatty, overly salted burger or fries. If I do eat out at a fast-food joint, I end up getting something grilled or I get a salad and use only about half the packet of dressing. Since switching the way I shop, I have saved on average 75$ a month on unnecessary trips to fast food restaurants and eating out in general. On the odd day I do go out, I ask for them to wrap half of my food to take home as a nice leftover meal the next day when I'm at work. The pricing seems like it would cost less to buy the junk foods, but you have to eat more of it to keep you from being hungry. Also, I keep water with me at all times; most of the time you think you're hungry, you're truly just thirsty. That can help you cut back on unneeded snacking.
Cost isn't the issue, its convenience. People need to stop being lazy and wanting to microwave everything. Each house I've ether been in or apartment I've rented has always come with a stove. More people need to learn how to use it and not see cooking food as a burden because of the lack of instant gratification.
actually, I don't think this will make a difference. People that are going to gorge on things don't look at the labels, and how hard is it to count? I always look at the serving size, if you can add then you can figure out. Truth is people don't want to know, so they avoid looking. and now, for people that don't eat obscene amounts of things like chips, they'd have to do more math to figure it out and I don't like math lol OH and, if the serving size is increased then people will use that as an excuse to eat more! if its like 50 chips vs 12, then people might start thinking oh well the serving size is 50... so if i eat 60 it wont be that bad. thus actually increasing obesity. If people wanted to know how much they were actually eating they'd keep track, putting higher numbers on the side of a package won't make a difference.