For years, concerned consumers and watchdog organizations have been yelling that US labeling laws are full of loopholes and need serious overhaul. After years of talks, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says it plans to do something about it. But will it be enough?
There are plenty of food labeling issues to complain about, but one of the biggest issues (due to its direct link to the obesity crisis) is portion sizes.
I don’t mean just enlarge. What’s worse is that the actual calories are being disguised with serving size sleight of hand. Let me show you some examples:
Tostitos touch of lime. Calories per serving: 150. Not bad for tortilla chips, huh? Not so fast. Check serving size: 1 ounce. That’s a whopping 6 fries. There are 10 servings per container. That’s 1500 calories in the bag.
Most guys could knock out half of that bag for 750 calories. Ok, so let’s say you have some moderation and only eat a third of the bag (20 chips). You still get 500 calories. But who stops at 6 tiles?
Vitamin water. While I could rant about how sugar water is marketed as a health food, I’ll stick to serving size sleight of hand for now.
The label says there are 50 calories per serving. Wow, only 50 calories! Plus, they add all those vitamins. It must be good for you and perfect for dieters, right? Think again. Look at the serving size and servings per container: 8 oz per serving and 2.5 servings per container.
Excuse me, but is there ANY reason to make it in 2.5 servings other than to disguise the actual caloric content?
When you see that the entire bottle is 20 ounces, you realize it contains 125 calories, not 50. Although 20 ounces is a big bottle, I don’t know many people who wouldn’t gobble up all of that.
About water of life? Same trick on their 20 oz bottles.
Healthy Choice soup, field vegetables. They make them in small microwave-safe containers with plastic lids. Just heat and eat.
It says 90 calories and 480 mg of sodium per serving. Wow, less than a hundred calories. However, wait a minute. Turn the container over and you will see that the serving size is 1 cup and the servings per container reads “about 2”.
Hey? It seems pretty obvious to me that this microwaveable container was designed for one person to eat in one sitting, so why not put 180 calories per container on the label (and 960mg sodium). I guess 90 calories and 480 mg of sodium sounds… well… like a healthier option!
Brownie ice cream with chocolate fudge from Ben and Jerry.
This infamously delicious ice cream with its own Facebook fan page has 270 calories per serving.
We all know that ice cream is loaded with calories and should only be an occasional treat, but at 270 calories per serving, that’s not so terrible, right?
Take a closer look at the label. The serving size is one cup. Who eats half a cup of ice cream? In fact, who hasn’t drunk an entire pint by themselves?
According to Ben and Jerry, there are 4 servings in that one pint container. 270 calories for 4 servings = 1080 calories! That’s about half a day’s worth of calories for the average woman.
I could go on and on: crackers, chocolate chip cookies, muffins, pasta, boxed cereal (who eats ¾ cup of cereal), etc. But I think you get the point.
What is the solution to this mess? News reports in the last week say the FDA may be cracking down. Count me among those who are glad to hear this news. One of his ideas is to post nutrition information, including calories, on the FRONT of food labels.
The problem is that this move alone could make things worse. Let’s say Tostitos started posting “150 calories per serving” right on the front of the bag. Most people would assume that French fries are low in calories. Putting the calorie information on the front of the label would only help if it clearly stated the number of calories in the whole package or a normal human-sized serving!
Oh, but the FDA says they’re aware of that too. They also want to standardize or redefine portion sizes. Sounds great, but there are critics who say that consumers would take it as an endorsement to eat larger portions, so the strategy would backfire.
Suppose, for example, that the government decides that no one eats ½ cup of Ben and Jerry’s, so they make the new serving 1 cup, or half the size of a pint. Now, by law, the label says 540 calories per serving instead of 270. Is that like getting official permission to eat twice as much?
I’m not against the latest FDA initiative, but what we really need is some labeling honesty.
Food manufacturers should not be allowed to manipulate serving sizes in a way that misleads you into thinking there are fewer calories than actually are in an amount you are likely to eat.
It would be nice to have the calories of the entire package listed on the label at a glance. A new rating scale for caloric density would also be great, if it could be easily interpreted. It would also be good to choose serving sizes for amounts that are most likely to be commonly eaten. But standardizing portion sizes for all types of foods is difficult.
My friends in Europe tell me that food labels list in 100g servings, which makes it easy to compare. But when you consider how much each individual’s daily caloric needs can vary (easily 3 times or more when you run the gamut from totally sedentary to elite athlete, not to mention the differences between men and women), standardizing that applies to everyone may not be possible.
I think recent laws, like requiring calories on restaurant menus, are a positive move that will influence some people’s behavior. But no label change alone will solve the obesity crisis. A real solution will have to include personal responsibility, nutrition education, self-discipline, hard work, and lifestyle changes.
Changes to labeling laws won’t influence everyone because the people who are likely to care about what labels say are those who have already committed to changing their lifestyles (and are less likely to eat processed and packaged foods, which have labels, in the first place). Actually, for those who care, all the information they need is already on the labels, they just need to do a little math and watch out for tricky label tricks.
There is a real solution to this problem of portion distortions and label lies: Be CALORIE CONSCIOUS. Of course, that includes polite label reading, but it goes much further. This is how I define “counting calories”:
1. Get a good calorie counter book, chart, or electronic device/software and know the calorie counts for all the staple foods you eat on a daily basis. Check the caloric values of the foods you eat occasionally.
2. Always have a daily eating plan – on paper – with the calories printed for each food, each meal and the day. Use that menu as a daily goal and objective.
3. Learn about the average calorie needs for men and women and learn to estimate your own calorie needs as closely as possible based on your activity, weight, body composition, height, gender, and age.
4. Get a good kitchen scale and use it.
Keep counting calories and doing nutrition by numbers until you are subconsciously competent and eating the right amounts to easily maintain your ideal weight becomes second nature.
Obviously, saying that calories are all there is in nutrition is like saying put all there is in golf. Both the quality and quantity of calories are important. However, it is a mistake to ignore the calorie side of the game. Portion sizes are important, and even healthy foods are stored as fat if you eat too much.
You can play “blindfold archery” by guessing your calories and food portions if you want. Hey, you might get lucky and hit it. Personally, I wouldn’t recommend relying on luck -or the government- for something as important as your body and health.
