3 ms·
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 sma
by 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 agoFor 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 agoNo 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.