About damn time
So, the FDA finally got around to realizing that the serving sizes listed on many foods Americans eat are complete bullshit and often deceptive to even conscentious shoppers who are purposely looking at nutritional labels.
Anyone who's had to actually study those labels realizes that they're very tricky and meant to be hard for the consumer to calculate accurately. Never mind that they're printed in very tiny print on the side or underside of a product (if you can find the information) and often the product has up times to 20% more calories than the packaging indicates.
So a product that tells a consumer that it only has 100 calories per serving may have 120 calories, same with sugar or fat. So if you're a person who has to watch such nutritional information with a keen eye, you may be getting terribly inaccurate information.
Information which is designed to be misleading anyway.
For instance, that harmless 150 calories of potato chips is actually a mere 7 chips. Go pick seven potato chips out of a bag, put them in a bowl. Then put the amount you'd normally grab in a bowl, count it, divide by seven and multiply by 150. That's how much you're actually getting when you think you're being good. Most people would put about 4-5 servings in a bowl as a modest little amount to snack on. That's 750 calories.
That is, if the serving size is something a consumer can reasonably measure. Not many consumers can guess at or reasonably measure 3 fluid oz. of something or that 3/4ths cup is a ridiculously bizarre size.
In the case of rice, they give you serving sizes and nutritional information for uncooked rice. So you know how many calories are in the entire batch you're making, but that makes it hard to calculate how much you're getting in the 1/2 cup of COOKED rice you're putting in your mouth for that meal.
Some of the worst offenders are cereals. The 2/3rds cup that is usually the serving size for those "healthy" cereals (Special K, Cheerios, etc) is a depressingly small amount. And that serving size is, on average, 120 calories. The serving size that most Americans would consume and feel full and satisfied after consuming is usually 3 or 4 servings. So, your cereal alone could run you about 300-400 calories, plus the 110 calories for the cup of milk you'd add (1% milk is what I'm using for my calculations) and your breakfast might be almost 500 calories.
Then, let's say you have orange juice. A nice cup of OJ is good, right? One cup of OJ is 110 calories. But those big tall glasses of juice they show on TV are usually 2 and 1/2 cups. So that almost 300 calories.
So, just in having a satisfying amount of cereal and orange juice (never mind the toast or eggs or waffles or fruit slices they show in "This Complete Breakfast" on TV commercials) you've consumed 800 calories. Without realizing it. Without being the overindulgent slob the media makes you out to be.
The fact is that most Americans are badly misinformed, undereducated, and just plain old confused about nutritional information and how to accurately assess whether they're eating healthy or not.
Not to mention that the healthiest foods (fresh produce, for instance) are often overpriced, understocked, or just plain old unavailable in some areas, particularly low-income, badly developed areas. Many areas suffer from being smack dab in the middle of food deserts - which are areas in which healthier foods are physically or economically unavailable to those in that area.
If the only place near you that sells healthy food is Whole Foods (which I now refuse to ever shop at) and you make minimum wage, you're going to select cheaper foods. And cheaper foods often tend to be less healthy ones in many instances.
Never mind that for a struggling grocer who isn't part of a megachain, it is often much easier to stock prepackaged food that can stay on the shelves a long time and come with manufacturer's rebates, foods like potato chips and snack cakes and microwaved meals and processed meat and cheese rather than some produce which can run close to 3/lbs a pound in some areas, especially areas that are not close to or readibly accessible from farms or other distribution centers.
So when tired, overworked, misinformed Americans see a $1.99 bag of chips and tha's only 150 calories, tastes good, and gives them comfort after a long day - do you really think they're just being horrible slobs for chosing it? Or are they working with what they have?
Anyone who's had to actually study those labels realizes that they're very tricky and meant to be hard for the consumer to calculate accurately. Never mind that they're printed in very tiny print on the side or underside of a product (if you can find the information) and often the product has up times to 20% more calories than the packaging indicates.
So a product that tells a consumer that it only has 100 calories per serving may have 120 calories, same with sugar or fat. So if you're a person who has to watch such nutritional information with a keen eye, you may be getting terribly inaccurate information.
Information which is designed to be misleading anyway.
For instance, that harmless 150 calories of potato chips is actually a mere 7 chips. Go pick seven potato chips out of a bag, put them in a bowl. Then put the amount you'd normally grab in a bowl, count it, divide by seven and multiply by 150. That's how much you're actually getting when you think you're being good. Most people would put about 4-5 servings in a bowl as a modest little amount to snack on. That's 750 calories.
That is, if the serving size is something a consumer can reasonably measure. Not many consumers can guess at or reasonably measure 3 fluid oz. of something or that 3/4ths cup is a ridiculously bizarre size.
In the case of rice, they give you serving sizes and nutritional information for uncooked rice. So you know how many calories are in the entire batch you're making, but that makes it hard to calculate how much you're getting in the 1/2 cup of COOKED rice you're putting in your mouth for that meal.
Some of the worst offenders are cereals. The 2/3rds cup that is usually the serving size for those "healthy" cereals (Special K, Cheerios, etc) is a depressingly small amount. And that serving size is, on average, 120 calories. The serving size that most Americans would consume and feel full and satisfied after consuming is usually 3 or 4 servings. So, your cereal alone could run you about 300-400 calories, plus the 110 calories for the cup of milk you'd add (1% milk is what I'm using for my calculations) and your breakfast might be almost 500 calories.
Then, let's say you have orange juice. A nice cup of OJ is good, right? One cup of OJ is 110 calories. But those big tall glasses of juice they show on TV are usually 2 and 1/2 cups. So that almost 300 calories.
So, just in having a satisfying amount of cereal and orange juice (never mind the toast or eggs or waffles or fruit slices they show in "This Complete Breakfast" on TV commercials) you've consumed 800 calories. Without realizing it. Without being the overindulgent slob the media makes you out to be.
The fact is that most Americans are badly misinformed, undereducated, and just plain old confused about nutritional information and how to accurately assess whether they're eating healthy or not.
Not to mention that the healthiest foods (fresh produce, for instance) are often overpriced, understocked, or just plain old unavailable in some areas, particularly low-income, badly developed areas. Many areas suffer from being smack dab in the middle of food deserts - which are areas in which healthier foods are physically or economically unavailable to those in that area.
If the only place near you that sells healthy food is Whole Foods (which I now refuse to ever shop at) and you make minimum wage, you're going to select cheaper foods. And cheaper foods often tend to be less healthy ones in many instances.
Never mind that for a struggling grocer who isn't part of a megachain, it is often much easier to stock prepackaged food that can stay on the shelves a long time and come with manufacturer's rebates, foods like potato chips and snack cakes and microwaved meals and processed meat and cheese rather than some produce which can run close to 3/lbs a pound in some areas, especially areas that are not close to or readibly accessible from farms or other distribution centers.
So when tired, overworked, misinformed Americans see a $1.99 bag of chips and tha's only 150 calories, tastes good, and gives them comfort after a long day - do you really think they're just being horrible slobs for chosing it? Or are they working with what they have?