Food Labels Puzzle Americans, Study Says

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused

Now wait. People won't be willing to measure out their servings, but will be willing to cut the entire box into seperate serving sizes and do the math from a total on the box?

Dude, did you think about this before you posted it?

I think it's easier to estimate based on % volume than trying to figure out cups or ounces. But even if it's not, if a bag of chips clearly labeled that it contains 4000 calories some people would be less inclinded to just sit down and consume the entire thing. Some people don't care either way, but some simply don't take the time to crunch the numbers on the small serving sizes. A total calorie content on the package would be a big red light.

OK, I'll agree with that. So why not add a total calorie count to the already existing serving size count?

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: dullard
Facts: People are stupid. Serving sizes don't reflect normal eating habits. People's eating habits are frequently defined by the container size.

Thus I agree with the few others here that mentioned the simple fix. Use two columns. One column using the standardized serving size. A second column listing the contents of the entire package. So if someone always eats a full package or half a package (quite typical in my experience), then they can easilly know the nutrician facts for what they are eating.

A more difficult change, but a change that should be made, is to make serving sizes reflect normal eating habits.

Exactly. You said more clearly the point I was attempting to make. I never hear anyone say, "I just ate just ate 8 cups of chips", but I often hear people talk about eating "half a bag" or "half the box".

 

[Thraxen]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: Amused

Now wait. People won't be willing to measure out their servings, but will be willing to cut the entire box into seperate serving sizes and do the math from a total on the box?

Dude, did you think about this before you posted it?

I think it's easier to estimate based on % volume than trying to figure out cups or ounces. But even if it's not, if a bag of chips clearly labeled that it contains 4000 calories some people would be less inclinded to just sit down and consume the entire thing. Some people don't care either way, but some simply don't take the time to crunch the numbers on the small serving sizes. A total calorie content on the package would be a big red light.

OK, I'll agree with that. So why not add a total calorie count to the already existing serving size count?

That's what I said inmy first post... that total calorie count can be in addition to the existing serving size based numbers.

 

[zephyrprime]

In peoples' defence, the problem is with the silly serving sizes. Manufacturers deliberately specify unrealistically small serving sizes to deceive the public.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

OK, I'll agree with that. So why not add a total calorie count to the already existing serving size count?

That's what I said inmy first post... that total calorie count can be in addition to the existing serving size based numbers.[/quote]

Ah, I guess I mistook your argument for getting rid of serving sizes altogether.

My bad.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Amused
And what? Change it to 12 oz?

Then people would complain when they buy a 16, 24 or 32 oz drink. Or even a 2 liter bottle.

You have to pick one standard for serving sizes. Does it really matter which standard it is when so many sizes exist?

i wasn't complaining that 8 oz is deceptive. i was complaining that it's retarded to use.

i'd say the 12 oz can is more common than any other size. and 8 oz cans are pretty much non-existant. so yes, while i know why they do that (easy comparison), the fact that it doesn't match up with typical use in any way, shape or form makes 8 oz retarded.

and, just like dullard, i'm advocating a second column. have a per serving so you can compare across packages, and a per package.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: SWScorch
people, notably Americans, are dumb. Who really thinks that a whole box of pasta, one of the most calorie-dense foods, will only be 170 calories?

Most Americans are not dumb.

And who the hell can eat a whole box of pasta in one sitting? :Q That lady must be the size of a cow.

 

[SWScorch]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

:roll: That is correct we Americans are dumb. Great generalization and usage of stererotypes to clarify your point. Overall, I believe many Americans are not too stupid to understand the label but choose not to so that they can remain foggy about the actual densities of the foods they are eating as it relates to Calories, fat etc. We (Americans) have become a society of gluttons in which are small portions are as large as the grand portions in other parts of the world. By hazing our awareness we don't have to take responsibility for the foods we are consuming on a consious level.

But Americans are no more notably "dumb" than anyone else.

I fail to see how your argument proves Americans aren't dumb... If they choose to remain ignorant of the facts so as to avoid responsibility, then in my opinion, that means they are dumb. Now Canadians, that's a whole 'nother story. Canadians are, without a doubt, the smartest people on the earth. The cold air invigorates the brain.

Originally posted by: mugs

Most Americans are not dumb.

And who the hell can eat a whole box of pasta in one sitting? :Q That lady must be the size of a cow.

That depends on what your definition of "most" is. Sure, a lot of Americans have college degrees, but we also have, in my opinion, a much higher percentage of dumb people, who eclipse the rest who do have common sense and rational thought processes.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
People understand what the labels mean, they just dont understand why the servings are so freaking rediculous.

If you pay attention to a lot of diet food, especially snack foods, its basically the same damn food with a smaller serving size.

Apparantly you don't pay attention to a lot of diet food, especially snack foods. They aren't the same.

Now if you compare snacks that have a "healthier" image like Sun Chips to a bag of Doritos, then you're right.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Thraxen

Originally posted by: dullard
Facts: People are stupid. Serving sizes don't reflect normal eating habits. People's eating habits are frequently defined by the container size.

Thus I agree with the few others here that mentioned the simple fix. Use two columns. One column using the standardized serving size. A second column listing the contents of the entire package. So if someone always eats a full package or half a package (quite typical in my experience), then they can easilly know the nutrician facts for what they are eating.

A more difficult change, but a change that should be made, is to make serving sizes reflect normal eating habits.

Exactly. You said more clearly the point I was attempting to make. I never hear anyone say, "I just ate just ate 8 cups of chips", but I often hear people talk about eating "half a bag" or "half the box".

I agree... when I look at the nutritional information, I always mentally multiply the fat and calories by the total servings, because I know I'm going to eat the entire container even if not in one sitting. When I see something has 60 grams of fat in the container, I make a point of eating it more sparingly. When I see something has 8 grams of fat in a 3 oz serving, that really means nothing to me because I don't know how big a 3 oz serving is.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Acanthus
People understand what the labels mean, they just dont understand why the servings are so freaking rediculous.

If you pay attention to a lot of diet food, especially snack foods, its basically the same damn food with a smaller serving size.

Apparantly you don't pay attention to a lot of diet food, especially snack foods. They aren't the same.

Now if you compare snacks that have a "healthier" image like Sun Chips to a bag of Doritos, then you're right.

Not really, go look at cereal like special K thats advertised as a health food, vs other cereals that arent sugar coated sugar.

diet cookies and ice cream vs their normal counterparts.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Amused

"They're not using (the labels) because they don't understand them," Rothman said.

They did a study and they still can't figure out the truth. They're not using (the labels) because they SIMPLY DON'T CARE.