Nutritional info on food labels and servings/portions?

[Felon]

Who gets to decide that a 360ml bottle of smoothie is 2-3 portions? It's such an obvious loophole to abuse - obviously they don't take the mickey by claiming a bottle is 20 portions but they still seem to have just made up something for the sake of marketing there.

It is, it's very cheeky.

Stuff like this is also particularly bad with children (who are the root cause of the obesity problems) as kids are far less likely to read or care about what the label says, even if it's all red. They'll just eat/drink the entirety of whatever is in the bag/can/bottle. When they get overweight - the food industry will simply point at the label, and absolve itself of any responsibility.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

It is, it's very cheeky.

Stuff like this is also particularly bad with children (who are the root cause of the obesity problems) as kids are far less likely to read or care about what the label says, even if it's all red. They'll just eat/drink the entirety of whatever is in the bag/can/bottle. When they get overweight - the food industry will simply point at the label, and absolve itself of any responsibility.

Playing devils advocate here, but it clearly says on the product what a serving size is. What is the alternative? Micro-baggies or containers of drinks with just a single serving in? Feels very wasteful.

 

[arknor]

I can understand the per 100ml and 100g etc.. is useful for comparison between products, but for products aimed at individuals, this "portion" or "serving" stuff is just total nonsense though and seems to be an attempt to deceive. It's not a ready meal for two we're talking about here.

it's the same with everything.

if you get some dry rice and cook what the packet says is a portion it's like a childs serving, cereal as well a lot of them one box is like 4-5 servings only in reality.
wheetabix are awesome though a totally full box! imagine that! a box of food thats actually completely full instead of 50-75% full amazing! I didn't think it could be done.

i guess my diet is considered healthy since I mostly cook my own meals and very rarely use salt/sugar, pretty much only if I'm baking dough.

I only drink water and coffee too so no sugar from drinks also no alcohol

most people must have no idea how many calories are in most drinks and not care

 

[Felon]

Playing devils advocate here, but it clearly says on the product what a serving size is. What is the alternative? Micro-baggies or containers of drinks with just a single serving in? Feels very wasteful.

I think the alternative is to get rid of the serving size altogether, and simply assume that a bag of crisps (like what @dowie linked) will be consumed in one sitting, by one person (because that's the reality) the fun part is that if you did that - the entire label would be red

Incidentally, I *think* (you'll have to check) that this is what happened with the sugar tax. I *think* that the sugar tax doesn't consider serving size, it simply says anything up to 500ml as one serving (which basically covers anything that is obviously one serving, cans / small bottles)

Even then - if they got rid of serving size, I doubt it would make much difference - the food industry and the situation with what people are eating, has got to such high levels of saturation - labels or a lack of then, simply isn't going to do much.

 

[dowie]

it's the same with everything.

if you get some dry rice and cook what the packet says is a portion it's like a childs serving, cereal as well a lot of them one box is like 4-5 servings only in reality.
wheetabix are awesome though a totally full box! imagine that! a box of food thats actually completely full instead of 50-75% full amazing! I didn't think it could be done

Yeah, but at least those things are clearly intended for multiple servings...

You don't expect to eat an entire box of cereal for breakfast but you probably do expect to eat a bag of crisps or have a drink as a single serving.

I get that cereal boxes downplay too, no one really pours out 30g of cereal it's more like double that, but it is a bit more legit to have a suggested portion size on something that is expected to be used for several portions not just one.

I think the alternative is to get rid of the serving size altogether, and simply assume that a bag of crisps (like what @dowie linked) will be consumed in one sitting, by one person (because that's the reality) the fun part is that if you did that - the entire label would be red

Yeah, I think it needs to be ditched on small items - i.e. drinks below a certain quantity, snacks or main meals below a certain weight etc.. they should simply contain a per 100g or ml figure and a per pack/bottle figure.

Clearly it can be more objective in some cases - if a ready meal is explicitly marketed as a meal for two: say an 800g supermarket shepherds pie instead of a 400g one then obviously it is reasonable to talk about per portion on the packaging and for that portion to be exactly half the contents.

It's not reasonable at all for a single (small) bag of crisps to be claimed as two servings in the small print or a small drink to be 2-3 servings (again in the small print) etc.. defeats the point of the traffic light system which was clear labelling.

 

[Uther]

It's like everything though, unless it's specifically made illegal there will always be a way around it.

 

[Felon]

And that's the thing - if they did remove the serving size, and a bag of crisps was in actual fact deemed to be a single serving (because it clearly is), and the traffic light label was all red - I'd be fine with it. Because lets face it, something like a bag of crisps or a chocolate bar should be an occasional treat (because it's very bad for you if consumed reguarly) and in proper moderation is fine, so technically there's nothing wrong with having an all red label.

However I imagine the food industry would be a bit "put out" by basically having to put a label on the side of it's product that's entirely in red, essentially saying; "this is very bad for you" and as a result they may sell less, hence why they screw around with the definition of serving, to water it all down.

 

[Semple]

I think the food industry has basically just played around with the serving size, in order for it to fit the traffic light food labels (Calories, fat, saturates, sugars, salt) that they brought in a few years ago.

If a serving size goes over a certain threshold, they have to make each part of the label "red" as the fat/sugar/calories gets high, so they basically divide it all by two, by simply selling the same size pack, but saying it's for two servings.

Some useful info in here; https://www.food.gov.uk/sites/default/files/media/document/fop-guidance_0.pdf

This sounds like the most plausible explanation.

Frankly a "2 portion" bag shouldn't exist, because most of these grab bags will be consumed by one person. Either make the bags big enough that they're a "share bag" containing 4/5 servings, or make the bag small enough that they only contain 1 serving.

 

[Mobius 1]

I had the blue naked smoothie today, and thought exactly the same thing. The calories listed on the front of the bottle should be the total for the whole drink. Not 100ml. Also, 2-3 servings ? Theres only a little more in the bottle than a can of sprite / Pepsi etc! It’s funny how they put how many “servings” are in the bottle in tiny print on the back too. Same with grab bags of crisps.

edit - also, people will skim over the calories on the front of a bag of crisps and think hey that’s not bad. Not taking note of the “per 30g”

 

[MookJong]

This book will blow you away if you aren’t aware of the tactics the processed food industry have used over the years. It’s a scandal on par if not worse than the tobacco industry.

Fascinating read (or listen I used audible) it will change your diet for sure.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Salt-Sugar...55&hvtargid=pla-464625639038&psc=1&th=1&psc=1

 

[robfosters]

I’m appalled at Dowies choice of snack.

Hula hoops are rank.

 

[Kenai]

The traffic light system should be based on % of one person's RDA and for the entire content of a particular packet (or particular individual packets for say multipack crisps) - then you can decide for yourself if you want to split the 'family pie' between your own fat self, 2 normal people or 4 people who'll be hungry again later.

 

[Deleted User 298457]

This sounds like the most plausible explanation.

Frankly a "2 portion" bag shouldn't exist, because most of these grab bags will be consumed by one person. Either make the bags big enough that they're a "share bag" containing 4/5 servings, or make the bag small enough that they only contain 1 serving.

Nobody tell this guy that people could just buy two bags

 

[jpaul]

maybe they should display the equivalent number of mars bars, calorie wise (or miles you need to run to work it off)- would that mean more for people ?
ie 1 bar for the crisps, one bar for the drink.

but once you have bought several bags of crisps in your life, you should really have a mental model of how many calories they will represent;
would you drink 360ml of fruit juice at breakfast, unless you had a very active job.

most peopl are carrying phones - must be a bar code based app that would total up your meal, too.

 

[bainbridge]

I've been dieting for 6 months and over time have become quite adept at deciphering what the actual calorie content of something is, but it's annoying having to work it out. When the Mrs or stepson cooks they'll often say "I checked and that is only 400 calories", but upon inspection that figure will often be based on half of the product, or based in 150grams when the total weight is 300grams. So it goes to show that the figure that the manufacturer wants to portray is the one that people believe when glancing at the figures, it's clearly misleading.

 

[builder22]

maybe they should display the equivalent number of mars bars

or Freddos - this bag of crisps is the equivalent of 7 Freddos...proceed with caution!

the serving size listed on things must just be whenever fat/salt/sugar or whatever goes over a certain percentage of recommended daily intake...guess I'm stating the obvious here tho

 

[Demon]

I would love it if they where forced to only sell single portion sizes, some things would come in comedic sized micro packaging.. (oo-eer missus)

 

[Deleted User 298457]

I would love it if they where forced to only sell single portion sizes, some things would come in comedic sized micro packaging.. (oo-eer missus)

Individually packed Rolos?

What would OCUK do with Haribos? Open a pack and sling in 1 or 2 coke bottles?

 

[Haggisman]

Playing devils advocate here, but it clearly says on the product what a serving size is. What is the alternative? Micro-baggies or containers of drinks with just a single serving in? Feels very wasteful.

"clearly"... To a point, sure, they aren't "hiding" the information as such, but it's certainly obfuscated, if you have two 50g packs of crisps in front of you, one saying 50cal and one saying 30cal, you shouldn't have to have to read the small print and get the calculator out to establish that the 30cal one is actually worse because the "serving size" on that one is 25g, whereas the 50cal "serving size" is the whole pack.

Reminds me of a Cheesecake we had recently, "serves 16 people" apparently... Even though the "serving suggestion" on the front of the box clearly had a picture of 1/4 on a plate . Let's be honest, you'd think someone was stingey if they gave you 1/8th of a cheesecake, never mind a 1"x 2" mouthful!

Should be an ISO standard for serving sizes tbh

 

[413x]

What's with 30g of cereal as a portion? Seriously. No one has 30g?

I pay no attention to this anyway