Serving Sizes That Make Sense
I don't care so much if the new nutrition labeling affects obesity or diabetes. I'm just glad someone's finally making those labels less stupid. Hopefully, this will eliminate stupid serving sizes like 1 can of something equaling 2.3 servings. What the hell am i supposed to do with 0.3 servings? Save it up until eventually my extra 0.3 adds up to a whole number?
Current serving sizes are based on the amount people should eat, not how much they actually consume. A quick glance at the nutrition label on a 5.3 oz bag of M&M's shows 220 calories--but snack on the entire 3.5-serving package and you've actually consumed 770.
I hope the "per package" info is more prominant in these cases then the "per serving" info. I think most people aren't sharing their M&Ms with their 2.5 friends.
Although, this is still a problem:
But there are lingering concerns with current labels that have not been solved in the new proposal. For example, the proposed label does not address the fact that the FDA currently permits five different methods of measuring total calories and allows for a calorie-count margin of error of 20 percent.
And obviously, the Sugar Association isn't happy about the "added sugar" category that will now be appearing. I picture the Sugar Association as a bunch of little people with big heads (kinda like the original Strawberry Shortcake) covered in frosting and sugar and candies. That's pretty close, right?
By min | February 28, 2014, 8:07 AM | Science
Pretty sure this is what the Sugar Association guys look like: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ce/Kandy_Man.jpg
why did you do that???