Data Graham posted:

I will never forget the day I saw “50% LESS FAT!!!” margarine in the supermarket, right next to the regular version of the same brand.

Flipped them over and the one had a serving size of 1 oz, the other was 1/2 oz.

Tiggum posted:

With the bacon one, why not put the bacon in the sandwich?

Whooping Crabs posted:

Share size, gently caress that. King me beyotch!

Iron Crowned posted:

That and, why would I want someone else's grubby mitts all over my candy coated chocolate turds?

zedprime posted:

You rip the corner and pour them out you monster.

My Lovely Horse posted:

It feels pretty great, actually. And I thought I was the only one who called it that.

Data Graham posted:

The thing is, I know there was a good-faith attempt at rationalizing this stuff back in the mid-90s, about when the standardized "Nutrition Facts" boxes were put on packaging. Before that you would get ridiculous poo poo like a 12-oz can of Coke having a serving size of 8 ounces or a small bag of chips having 2.4 servings or whatever. But after that it said like "serving size: 1 can" or "1 bag", much saner and more usable numbers.

quote:

“We now have much more recent food consumption data, and it showed us that some serving sizes on food labels should change,” says Douglas Balentine, Ph.D., the director of FDA’s Office of Nutrition and Food Labeling. For example, serving sizes for muffins have changed. People generally consume an entire muffin, and not a half or a third.

In some cases, the reference amounts used to set serving sizes are smaller. Today’s individually packaged yogurts more often come in 6-ounce containers, versus the previous 8-ounce ones. FDA is now using a 6-ounce reference amount for yogurt.

But the serving size for ice cream has gotten a little larger. Instead of a half of a cup, it’s now two-thirds of a cup.

21 CFR 101.12.A(a) posted:

Sec. 101.12 Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion.
(a) The general principles and factors that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) considered in arriving at the reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion (reference amounts) which are set forth in paragraph (b) of this section, are that:

(1) FDA calculated the reference amounts for persons 4 years of age or older to reflect the amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion by persons in this population group. These reference amounts are based on data set forth in appropriate national food consumption surveys.

(2) FDA calculated the reference amounts for an infant or child under 4 years of age to reflect the amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion by infants up to 12 months of age or by children 1 through 3 years of age, respectively. These reference amounts are based on data set forth in appropriate national food consumption surveys. Such reference amounts are to be used only when the food is specially formulated or processed for use by an infant or by a child under 4 years of age.

(3) An appropriate national food consumption survey includes a large sample size representative of the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the relevant population group and must be based on consumption data under actual conditions of use.

(4) To determine the amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion, FDA considered the mean, median, and mode of the consumed amount per eating occasion.

(5) When survey data were insufficient, FDA took various other sources of information on serving sizes of food into consideration. These other sources of information included:

(i) Serving sizes used in dietary guidance recommendations or recommended by other authoritative systems or organizations;

(ii) Serving sizes recommended in comments;

(iii) Serving sizes used by manufacturers and grocers; and

(iv) Serving sizes used by other countries.

(6) Because they reflect the amount customarily consumed, the reference amount and, in turn, the serving size declared on the product label are based on only the edible portion of food, and not bone, seed, shell, or other inedible components.

(7) The reference amount is based on the major intended use of the food (e.g., milk as a beverage and not as an addition to cereal).

(8) The reference amounts for products that are consumed as an ingredient of other foods, but that may also be consumed in the form in which they are purchased (e.g., butter), are based on use in the form purchased.

(9) FDA sought to ensure that foods that have similar dietary usage, product characteristics, and customarily consumed amounts have a uniform reference amount.

Data Graham posted:

I guess the idiocy has crept back in over time as oversight has gotten lazier?

Fleta Mcgurn posted:

I lost a baby tooth to a carob-covered rice cake. My life may not be worth living.

Xristos anesti! My mom made an entire Greek Easter dinner without salt! Plz kill me because I am in trouble for applying salt to roasted items.

E: Drunk Dad fell asleep at the table, woke up suddenly with a snort, and yelled QUATTRO FORMAGGIO I do not know what the gently caress.

ulmont posted:

This is still the case. The original numbers were created in 1993 based on what people ate in 1977-1978 and 1987-1988. They were updated in 2016.

https://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm386203.htm

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.12

Haverchuck posted:

Whats the bit in the lower left

Tiggum posted:

Wait, so instead of just saying all foods have to give nutrition facts for a standard weight they went through and specified a different amount for every type of food? They could have just said "every food label has to show nutrition facts per 5oz" (or whatever weight is reasonable in your system) but instead they decided to do a massive survey to determine how much of each type of food the average person eats in one go?

NewFatMike posted:

You are my favorite poster.

Data Graham posted:

Makes more sense to me to standardize on “the amount you’re likely to eat” rather than making people mentally weigh how much cereal or chocolate or coke or Cheeto dust is in 5 ounces, but

Elizabethan Error posted:

you're operating under the assumption that the FDA isn't underfunded and understaffed

Tiggum posted:

That's the thing though, conducting a massive survey and assigning different standards to every product takes much more effort and resources than just saying every product has to follow the same rule regardless.

Elizabethan Error posted:

you're operating under the assumption that the FDA isn't underfunded and understaffed

Tiggum posted:

I was thinking mainly about the complexity of the regulations. If there's a standard weight across all products then you only need one rule for everything instead of coming up with different numbers for every product.

But also the grams per 100g measurement being a percentage (so a product that's 20% sugar will say 20g of sugar per 100g on it) is useful so you can work out the amount per serve really easily based on whatever serving size you choose. Eg. if it's a 250g pack and you're going to eat half of it in one go, you just multiply the values by 1.25. That's probably less easy with the American system, but you still have the weight listed on the package (I assume) so it's not like you have to guess how much stuff weighs.

That's the thing though, conducting a massive survey and assigning different standards to every product takes much more effort and resources than just saying every product has to follow the same rule regardless.

Elizabethan Error posted:

Happy Noodle Boy posted:

it’s lunch time, trump thread, and I want to show off the burrito the Mexican shop by me sells



(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Tiggum posted:

I don't understand where you're coming from with this.

The Door Frame posted:

I just think it's dumb that there's 4 servings in a can of beans, like I'm not going to eat a pound of beans in a single sitting

Iron Crowned posted:

I have eaten a can of unheated refried beans for dinner a few times.

Randaconda posted:

https://i.imgur.com/2DpRFXN.mp4

Randaconda posted:

https://i.imgur.com/2DpRFXN.mp4

Fleta Mcgurn posted:

Wait, those are still a thing?

fizzymercy posted:

You bastards made me check the nutrition content of my Andy Capp's Cheddar Fries that my current THC levels begged me to eat.



I ate a whole bag. All calories. I'm going to die of some sort of megagout.

Tiggum posted:

Wait, so instead of just saying all foods have to give nutrition facts for a standard weight they went through and specified a different amount for every type of food? They could have just said "every food label has to show nutrition facts per 5oz" (or whatever weight is reasonable in your system) but instead they decided to do a massive survey to determine how much of each type of food the average person eats in one go?

Fleta Mcgurn posted:

Wait, those are still a thing?

Arivia posted:

Are Takis good? They started selling them here recently and I've been wondering if they're worth picking up.

Tiggum posted:

What? You're saying that the fact that they don't have time or money means they have to do the thing that takes longer and costs more? I don't understand where you're coming from with this.

Arivia posted:

Are Takis good? They started selling them here recently and I've been wondering if they're worth picking up.