h a l f b a k e r yNaturally low in facts.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
For years, the US Government has tried to make food labels
accurate. They've increased the visibility of ingredients.
They have warning labels when something contains
saccharine, nutrasweel, or alcohol. They've enlarged labels so
that people can see what portions of an individual's USRDA the
food contains.
However, that's a real zinger. The portions.
How many people do you know that eat one piece of pizza?
Or a two-square inch block of lasagna? Half a package of
ramen or a 20 oz. bottle of soda?
My suggestion: Rather than make some asanine assumption as
to what a "portion" of a given food product is, or passively try
to influence people to eat a thimble sized portion, food labels
should contain realistic caloric/fat/cholesterol intake
measurements, based on the packaging, and based on what
the average joe would actually consume.
None of this "130 calories a serving" on the side of a soda that
contains "2.5 servings". That's just hiding the truth in pretty
packages; I have a feeling that most people don't/won't
reduce their intake just because they see the measurements
and decide to consume within those guidelines.
Rather, I think that if people read the labels, saw accurate
measurements ("What? A plate of macaroni and cheese has
/how many/ calories??"), they might reduce their intake that
way.
You think I'm kidding? Read the side of your Kraft Mac and
Cheese -- when's the last time you ate a mere "2.5 oz" of that
stuff? Not to mention the rest of your meal...
[link]
|
| |
At the bottom of nutrition info, they sometimes have the percents in two columns, one based on a 2000 calorie diet, the other based on 3000. You could do that for the portions (have the info for a suggested serving, and if you eat like a normal person) In case people don't want to do the math. |
|
| |
I agree with this idea completely. You get a croissant from me, which is what, 2.5 servings? |
|
| |
"serves 4 - but only if they are dwarves" |
|
| |
unabubba: it's times like this that i wish we could vote on annotations. it was all i could do keep from laughing out loud, not a good thing when your'e sulking in your cubicle. :o) well done! |
|
| |
Your boss says, "Try not to think of it as sitting in your cubicle; think of it as retiring late". |
|
| |
My vote in the Best Language for Specific Advertising -- Adaptations category goes to the use of fertilizer tridigital nomenclature (N00-P00-K00) on candy, as in P40-C35-F25 "performance" bars. |
|
| |
Ah, but no producer wants to tell the complete truth about thier product, because frankly they don't know it. The people who come up with the serving sizes are the Legal and Compliance people who, surprisingly enough, run on electricity, and cheap beer |
|
| |
Portion sizes are based on a quota given to them by an outside consultant. |
|
| |
If these people were forced to print exactly what is in thier products then they would come up with some other way to blur the message.
Like printing it in script or in Chinese. |
|
| |
AntHill: Sure, but it's a balance--we try to get 'them' to tell us what the hell is in the stuff they're selling, and 'they' try to hide the information. If we just let 'em slide, we lose. Gotta keep pushing. So a big butter-drenched pastry for cswiii. |
|
| |
I second PeterSealy's motion for package totals. That way I can calculate protein unit price from two numbers instead of three. |
|
| |
I LOVE THE IDEA, BUT THE PRODUCTS WOULD NEVER SELL LIKE THEY DO NOW BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD KNOW THE "REAL" TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THEY ARE EATING. (SAME THING WITH TIGARETTE LABELS) ON THE OTHER HAND, WHAT WE SEE NOW ON PRODUCTS IS A BIT MISLEADING AND I THINK THAT'S WHY OBESITY IS SO COMMON AND GYM MEMBERSHIPS ARE SELLING LIKE CRAZY!! PERSONALLY, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW HOW FAT I'M GOING TO BE TOMOROW! WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK? |
|
| |