Standardized serving sizes
New FDA food labeling rules came into place on January 1, 2006 to list both the fat content of food but also the dangerous trans-fat content of food. Assuming that individuals are the best caretakers of their own health, and that they'll make better choices with more information, this is a good change that will help keep people healthier.
Two more changes that I think would be good is if they either implemented standardized serving sizes, or if the label contained a column for the total quantity per package, not just per serving size.
It is just so frustrating how manufacturers try to manipulate people’s perceptions by fiddling with the servings per container, to make the product seem more benign than it actually is.
Two more changes that I think would be good is if they either implemented standardized serving sizes, or if the label contained a column for the total quantity per package, not just per serving size.
It is just so frustrating how manufacturers try to manipulate people’s perceptions by fiddling with the servings per container, to make the product seem more benign than it actually is.
posted by Linton at 12:40 PM
2 Comments:
I must say, I have periodically checked this site to see how your travels unfolded in India. But not until the comment about FDA labeling did I feel compelled to reply! Truly a passionate subject of mine, if we are going to assume that individuals are the best caretakers of their own health, you cannot in turn hold their hand and cut out a portion size or "eat the entire box" quantity for them. The argument contradicts itself. The overweight, diabetic, hypertensives will only aknowledge responsibilty if they are held accountable.
Hope all is well, by the way!
Angela B.
Hi Angela,
I'm glad you've been compelled to reply! I hope you've been well.
Well, in the long term, the overweight diabetic hypertensives are held accountable, by shorter, less productive life spans. Unfortunately, food choices are less clear-cut than smoking was, so unless we are willing to expand the nanny state to a much greater degree than currently seems practicable, getting individuals to act more in the interests of their own health is the only large-scale option available at the moment. The best we can hope for at the moment is to make it as easy as possible for people who are mildly interested in their long-term health to eat well by their bodies.
With that in mind, I don't think it IS contradictory to try to make it as easy as possible for people to eat well. In any large population there are going to be people who will eat healthfully no matter how difficult it is, similarly there are those who will avoid healthy food no matter how easy you make it. Who needs to be reached are those in the middle, who would like to eat healthfully, but aren’t particularly interested in paying more for it, or in bending over backwards to do it. And these aren’t bad people—I know i think of myself like this.
But in terms of places where labels might help, the 20 ounce Coca Cola bottles are a good example. Not only are the cokes (inexplicably) cheaper than water much of the time, they actually contain 2.5 servings of 8 ounces each per bottle, at 130 calories per serving. The thing is, it is completely unobvious that you would divide up a 20 ounce bottle at all, much less in to 2.5 parts. It is difficult to measure 2.5 parts and difficult to stop drinking a carbonated beverage half way through, it will go flat and/or warm.
The issue is further confused when Coca cola markets other products, like its cans, as single servings of 12 ounces each.
I imagine in contexts such as this, putting on the label that each 20 ounce bottle has 300 calories might give purchasers pause. Who knows, those leaning towards healthy in the spectrum might even reach for the Daisani.
Post a Comment
<< Home