New food labels coming to US

[Klaus]

I think it would make sense to give the values per 100g. "Serving size" is BS. Nobody eats just the "serving size" of anything.

[jon-nyc]

@Klaus

One of the changes is making the serving size more representative. They won’t be able to make bag of chips you’d eat with lunch and call it 2.5 servings.

[Klaus]

@jon-nyc said in New food labels coming to US:

@Klaus

One of the changes is making the serving size more representative. They won’t be able to make bag of chips you’d eat with lunch and call it 2.5 servings.

OK, fair enough, but if I look at labels, I usually want to compare with alternative products. Does this salami have more calories than the other one? If the serving sizes are different - well, we know how good people are at the rule of three.

[Mik]

@Horace said in New food labels coming to US:

@89th said in New food labels coming to US:

I wish it just the nutrition for the full package instead of serving.

Package is the serving amirite

For instance, on a box of Oreos, it lists two cookies as a serving. Everybody knows a serving of Oreos is a row.

[Catseye3]

approves of these changes.

[jon-nyc]

The food industry really pushed back hard against added sugars, but lost.

I'm glad they did, now they will work to lower or eliminate those numbers in many cases.

[Mik]

I've been pretty compulsive about reading those labels for many years, along with the ingredients.

[Catseye3]

@jon-nyc said in New food labels coming to US:

now they will work to lower or eliminate those numbers in many cases.

Yes, but I have wondered for a long time how, or how well, the accuracy of the nutrition labels is enforced. If Kraft says an item has 5 grams of sugar, what's keeping it from adding 7 grams?

[Doctor Phibes]

@Klaus said in New food labels coming to US:

Does this salami have more calories than the other one?

The age old question.

[Copper]

I like the labels.

I don't look at them most of the time, but they tend to tell me what I want to know.