Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
OK, definitely a first-world food "problem", but as someone who is currently recording everything she eats into Myfitnesspal, I have a question.
Does anyone know why so many canned items--beans, other vegetables, fruit--are listed as being 3.5 servings? Why don't they just change the numbers and make them THREE servings?
For example, I have a can of Goya red kidney beans. 3.5 servings. 90 calories per serving. This means the entire can is 315 calories. Why not just call it three servings, 105 calories each?
Is it because they are trying to fit it into standard measuring cups? They consider a serving 1/2 cup. OK, so change the serving size. Use the metric system if necessary. OR change the size of the cans to begin with.
You know, REALLY IMPORTANT STUFF like this has gone unnoticed up until now, but manufacturers better wake up and realize that with coronavirus keeping us home, we're going to start asking these questions.
It drives me mad too. I just add up the total calories & then decide if we will make it into 2 or 4 servings. ( all in one meal, or over two meals for both of us). But iut would be easier if they used whole numbers.
OK, definitely a first-world food "problem", but as someone who is currently recording everything she eats into Myfitnesspal, I have a question.
Does anyone know why so many canned items--beans, other vegetables, fruit--are listed as being 3.5 servings? Why don't they just change the numbers and make them THREE servings?
For example, I have a can of Goya red kidney beans. 3.5 servings. 90 calories per serving. This means the entire can is 315 calories. Why not just call it three servings, 105 calories each?
Because they don't make the decision of what constitutes a serving; the FDA does.
Because they don't make the decision of what constitutes a serving; the FDA does.
Ah. Good answer, good answer.
Then the question would be why don't they package in accordance with FDA serving sizes.
I supposed there is a whole lot of detailed manufacturing information involved in that answer of which I am blissfully unaware.
I noticed that on Canadian products, there is no number of servings listed on a package, just the serving size. I thought perhaps it's because they are squeezing two languages onto every label and decided to let people figure it out for themselves. The print can get really small to accommodate both French and English. I've bought the wrong cat food because I went by the color of the label and didn't know it wasn't what I thought it was until his royal highness turned up his nose at what I thought was something he liked.
Then the question would be why don't they package in accordance with FDA serving sizes.
I supposed there is a whole lot of detailed manufacturing information involved in that answer of which I am blissfully unaware.
I would assume that they did at one point, but as you are most likely aware, packaging has been shrinking. In other words, rather than raise prices, the companies reduce the size of the can, jar, or bottle. For example, Kraft mayo used to come in 32oz and 64oz sizes; not they're 30oz & 60. Some items, such as certain brands of orange juice, have even reduced their half-gallon cartons down to 59oz. Nescafe instant coffee has gone from 8oz to 7oz. Cans of tuna have undergone several reductions.
The concept of a 'serving' as described on nutritional labels is unnecessarily complicating.
They should just use {nutritional value} per weight/volume, such as {150 calories} per ounce (or grams if you prefer). Smaller packages could have total values per package. And some do. I have notices some snack foods, like smaller bags of potato chips, listing not only the calories per serving (2.5 per package) as well as the total calories. WHich is useful since most people eat the whole bag, if not in one sitting, at least within a day.
If the product is comprised of easily countable, uniformly sized units, such as cookies, a count per unit would be useful as well.
When I am eating something such as a can of soup that contains "2.5" servings, I usually just multiply the value I am measuring by the servings to get a total for the package, then adjust to the amount I am eating, 1/3, 1/2, or the whole can.
I would assume that they did at one point, but as you are most likely aware, packaging has been shrinking. In other words, rather than raise prices, the companies reduce the size of the can, jar, or bottle. For example, Kraft mayo used to come in 32oz and 64oz sizes; not they're 30oz & 60. Some items, such as certain brands of orange juice, have even reduced their half-gallon cartons down to 59oz. Nescafe instant coffee has gone from 8oz to 7oz. Cans of tuna have undergone several reductions.
And there are many other examples.
Yup, I was buying tuna when tbe change went from 6 oz to 5 oz. Both sizes were on the shelf at the same time.
The concept of a 'serving' as described on nutritional labels is unnecessarily complicating.
They should just use {nutritional value} per weight/volume, such as {150 calories} per ounce (or grams if you prefer). Smaller packages could have total values per package. And some do. I have notices some snack foods, like smaller bags of potato chips, listing not only the calories per serving (2.5 per package) as well as the total calories. WHich is useful since most people eat the whole bag, if not in one sitting, at least within a day.
If the product is comprised of easily countable, uniformly sized units, such as cookies, a count per unit would be useful as well.
When I am eating something such as a can of soup that contains "2.5" servings, I usually just multiply the value I am measuring by the servings to get a total for the package, then adjust to the amount I am eating, 1/3, 1/2, or the whole can.
I've always assumed it's so the shopper will pick up an extra just in case they haven't put enough food on the table. That's a problem for me, trying to decide that everyone's had enough. When I'm entertaining I don't want anyone to leave wanting more.
Just like they never package a matching number of hot dogs and buns. Bet that person could make a few bucks. Heh.
The concept of a 'serving' as described on nutritional labels is unnecessarily complicating.
It is, and the serving sizes unreasonable. Not only that, often you just can't compare the calories per serving with similar products/brands, because they use a different amount (grams per serving).
Not to mention that amounts in grams are for most consumers a foreign concept in a country that uses and teaches the imperial system.
Quote:
When I am eating something such as a can of soup that contains "2.5" servings, I usually just multiply the value I am measuring by the servings to get a total for the package, then adjust to the amount I am eating, 1/3, 1/2, or the whole can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
