10 ms·

Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about h

Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about how much sugar they are selling to you. So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later.

theshrike79 3y ago
Isn't this why Tictacs are "zero calories" because the serving size is one Tictac and it's so small that the nutritional values round down to zero :D While actually it's basically 100% sugar.
alkonaut 3y ago
It does make sense to have the same "serving size" for a beverage across 0.33, 0.5 and 1.5L bottles though, regardless of whether no one actually shares the smaller ones. If anything, the "what's the sugar content of this whole package" should perhaps be declared separately.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  For Finnish on quick check 0,33 can has 0,33 as serving size, same for a bottle. However 1,5 l bottle has serving size of 250 ml.
- BoorishBears 3y ago
  No it does not make sense. We know that larger container sizes alone can increase intake (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22306436/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22306436/) and the purpose of nutrition facts is not to tell you what an arbitrary amount of something contains in a vacuum, it's to inform you on the contents of what you're about to ingest. "Servings" are just a convenient way to capture the fact that there are some cases where you're not expected to ingest the entire container: that's why a packet of mayonnaise and a jar of mayonnaise have near identical serving sizes, and same for packets of sugar vs boxes of sugar.
mrpopo 3y ago
I do that all the time... I never buy sugary drinks, but sometimes they come for free in a takeout menu. I can keep it for guests, but even then it piles up in my cupboard, so I drink it in 2 or 3 sittings. It's crazy that Coca-Cola is paying restaurants to only offer their poison (no still or sparkling water). These companies are literally making us sick.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  > It's crazy that Coca-Cola is paying restaurants to only offer their poison (no still or sparkling water). Holy sh... that would be in the US, right? Is that even legal?
fredrikholm 3y ago
Agreed. Yes, there's 20 servings in this package if by a serving you mean 1/5th of what you average adult eats in one sitting. The one exception here is when a portion actually equates to a portion, eg. '80 calories per cookie'. Those are wonderful, and probably what the original motivation for that type of labeling was; tangible.
- Pet_Ant 3y ago
  I feel like there needs to be another column for the entire package as long as it’s possible to consume the whole thing in a single sitting.
  - RetroTechie 3y ago
    EU's per 100g standard makes it easy to compare products. One product 22g sugars / 100g, the other 27g sugars / 100g. Read that on the labels, then choose. And %: say, peanuts 51g fats/100g -> ah, product is roughly 1/2 fat. Personally I ignore "Serving size" as meaningless bs. As for whole packaging: say 22g sugar / 100gr, and there's 350g in the package. 3.5x22 is too difficult to calculate in one's head? (roughly!)
  - Obscurity4340 3y ago
    Yes, like the thing where cereal boxes compare without milk and WITH milk, except for "recommended serving" and whole unit/volume
EliRivers 3y ago
A bottle of Coca-Cola used to be six fluid ounces (about 170 ml), and a McDonald's single serving was once about seven fluid ounces. Maybe nobody drinks half of a modern 500ml bottle, but people certainly used to think of less than half of that as a single serving.
sofixa 3y ago
> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies That's why there need to be strict rules on that. In the EU, serving sizes make sense (1 cookie or 2 slices of bread) (probably because they have to), and there always has to be the normalised by 100ml / 100g too, so you can compare even if serving sizes are lying.
- herbst 3y ago
  > In the EU, serving sizes make sense Like 1 child hand full of muesli, totally typical serving size for a breakfast. Totally legit to label the sugar with A or B then. I just get EU labels on Import products but so far I don't get it. They all have A or B and are full of sugars, sweeteners and aroma products.
  - Kbelicius 3y ago
    Being from EU, and just checked a few products, they all have 2 lists. One for serving size/per product and one for 100g. What don't you get?
    - herbst 3y ago
      The nutrition label is based on serving sizes which don't make sense in the real world making the whole label and wasted space nonsense. Like: The box says score A but when you check the 100g list you realize that you are eating a complete meal calorie wise as snack using a realistic serving size. With little to zero nutrition value. Why A?
      - anonyfox 3y ago
        nutrition labels are a lobbied-for scam. it compares products within _the same category_ against each other. Like, cereals against cereals, and boom: doesn't look too bad! The reality (cereals are pure carbs and not healthy whatsoever) is labelled over and simple-minded consumers think its better than it actually is and buy it.
tzs 3y ago
> So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later. Actually I had a coworker who would in fact drink 250 ml of a 500 ml bottle and leave the rest for later, although usually he would never get around to finishing it because he drank carbonated beverages and by the time he was next thirsty they had gone flat. The odd thing was he did this for all size bottles and cups. E.g., if I went to get lunch and he was too busy for a break then and I offered to bring something back for him no matter what sized drink I got for him he drank half.
em500 3y ago
> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about how much sugar they are selling to you. "Per serving/portion" seems like an American quick, like "tablespoons" or "cups" as units in recipes. The EU the labeling standard is per 100g or 100ml. > So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later. What do you mean? I do that all the time.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  "Per serving" is often shown on EU labels, although in addition to the per-100g figures. There are rules about when and how: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169#d1e2588-18-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...
Obscurity4340 3y ago
Definitely, the info should be for the unit size/volume. Also alcohol should have the label as well. People should know how many calories are in their drinks. The serving size can be relevant (whos going to drink an entire large bottle of V8 all at one time?) but there's no reason they can't do a side-by-side comparitive thing, similar to how cereal boxes compare the stats for the cereal by itself (dry) and with milk.
jscipione 3y ago
Oreo cookies are 160 calories per serving but double stuff Oreo cookies are only 150 calories per serving. How is this possible? The serving size for regular Oreo cookies is 3 cookies, for double stuff it is 2. Tricky.

theshrike79 3y ago

Isn't this why Tictacs are "zero calories" because the serving size is one Tictac and it's so small that the nutritional values round down to zero :D While actually it's basically 100% sugar.

alkonaut 3y ago

It does make sense to have the same "serving size" for a beverage across 0.33, 0.5 and 1.5L bottles though, regardless of whether no one actually shares the smaller ones. If anything, the "what's the sugar content of this whole package" should perhaps be declared separately.

Ekaros 3y ago
For Finnish on quick check 0,33 can has 0,33 as serving size, same for a bottle. However 1,5 l bottle has serving size of 250 ml.
BoorishBears 3y ago
No it does not make sense. We know that larger container sizes alone can increase intake (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22306436/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22306436/) and the purpose of nutrition facts is not to tell you what an arbitrary amount of something contains in a vacuum, it's to inform you on the contents of what you're about to ingest. "Servings" are just a convenient way to capture the fact that there are some cases where you're not expected to ingest the entire container: that's why a packet of mayonnaise and a jar of mayonnaise have near identical serving sizes, and same for packets of sugar vs boxes of sugar.

mrpopo 3y ago

I do that all the time... I never buy sugary drinks, but sometimes they come for free in a takeout menu. I can keep it for guests, but even then it piles up in my cupboard, so I drink it in 2 or 3 sittings. It's crazy that Coca-Cola is paying restaurants to only offer their poison (no still or sparkling water). These companies are literally making us sick.

RetroTechie 3y ago
> It's crazy that Coca-Cola is paying restaurants to only offer their poison (no still or sparkling water). Holy sh... that would be in the US, right? Is that even legal?

fredrikholm 3y ago

Agreed. Yes, there's 20 servings in this package if by a serving you mean 1/5th of what you average adult eats in one sitting. The one exception here is when a portion actually equates to a portion, eg. '80 calories per cookie'. Those are wonderful, and probably what the original motivation for that type of labeling was; tangible.

Pet_Ant 3y ago
I feel like there needs to be another column for the entire package as long as it’s possible to consume the whole thing in a single sitting.
- RetroTechie 3y ago
  EU's per 100g standard makes it easy to compare products. One product 22g sugars / 100g, the other 27g sugars / 100g. Read that on the labels, then choose. And %: say, peanuts 51g fats/100g -> ah, product is roughly 1/2 fat. Personally I ignore "Serving size" as meaningless bs. As for whole packaging: say 22g sugar / 100gr, and there's 350g in the package. 3.5x22 is too difficult to calculate in one's head? (roughly!)
- Obscurity4340 3y ago
  Yes, like the thing where cereal boxes compare without milk and WITH milk, except for "recommended serving" and whole unit/volume

EliRivers 3y ago

A bottle of Coca-Cola used to be six fluid ounces (about 170 ml), and a McDonald's single serving was once about seven fluid ounces. Maybe nobody drinks half of a modern 500ml bottle, but people certainly used to think of less than half of that as a single serving.

sofixa 3y ago

> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies That's why there need to be strict rules on that. In the EU, serving sizes make sense (1 cookie or 2 slices of bread) (probably because they have to), and there always has to be the normalised by 100ml / 100g too, so you can compare even if serving sizes are lying.

herbst 3y ago
> In the EU, serving sizes make sense Like 1 child hand full of muesli, totally typical serving size for a breakfast. Totally legit to label the sugar with A or B then. I just get EU labels on Import products but so far I don't get it. They all have A or B and are full of sugars, sweeteners and aroma products.
- Kbelicius 3y ago
  Being from EU, and just checked a few products, they all have 2 lists. One for serving size/per product and one for 100g. What don't you get?
  - herbst 3y ago
    The nutrition label is based on serving sizes which don't make sense in the real world making the whole label and wasted space nonsense. Like: The box says score A but when you check the 100g list you realize that you are eating a complete meal calorie wise as snack using a realistic serving size. With little to zero nutrition value. Why A?
    - anonyfox 3y ago
      nutrition labels are a lobbied-for scam. it compares products within _the same category_ against each other. Like, cereals against cereals, and boom: doesn't look too bad! The reality (cereals are pure carbs and not healthy whatsoever) is labelled over and simple-minded consumers think its better than it actually is and buy it.

tzs 3y ago

> So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later. Actually I had a coworker who would in fact drink 250 ml of a 500 ml bottle and leave the rest for later, although usually he would never get around to finishing it because he drank carbonated beverages and by the time he was next thirsty they had gone flat. The odd thing was he did this for all size bottles and cups. E.g., if I went to get lunch and he was too busy for a break then and I offered to bring something back for him no matter what sized drink I got for him he drank half.

em500 3y ago

> Nutritional labelling is such a cesspit of lies. My pet hate is the 'portion' or 'serving' sizes which are blatantly wrong just so the companies can lie about how much sugar they are selling to you. "Per serving/portion" seems like an American quick, like "tablespoons" or "cups" as units in recipes. The EU the labeling standard is per 100g or 100ml. > So you get 500 ml bottle with nutritional info shown for every 100 ml and 250ml because that's the 'serving size'. No-one has ever drunk 250ml (8 ounces) and then left the rest for later. What do you mean? I do that all the time.

Symbiote 3y ago
"Per serving" is often shown on EU labels, although in addition to the per-100g figures. There are rules about when and how: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32011R1169#d1e2588-18-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32...

Obscurity4340 3y ago

Definitely, the info should be for the unit size/volume. Also alcohol should have the label as well. People should know how many calories are in their drinks. The serving size can be relevant (whos going to drink an entire large bottle of V8 all at one time?) but there's no reason they can't do a side-by-side comparitive thing, similar to how cereal boxes compare the stats for the cereal by itself (dry) and with milk.

jscipione 3y ago

Oreo cookies are 160 calories per serving but double stuff Oreo cookies are only 150 calories per serving. How is this possible? The serving size for regular Oreo cookies is 3 cookies, for double stuff it is 2. Tricky.