When we're looking at food labels, a lot of us will look at the number of calories in a serving size but not take into account how many servings we're eating in a sitting.
And most of the serving sizes are smaller than the amount we're likely to eat -- when was the last time you had six tortilla chips? -- our caloric intake is likely several times higher than the number on the package. According to a recent story in The New York Times:
"We are actively looking at serving size and evaluating what steps we need to take," said Barbara O. Schneeman, director of the F.D.A. office that oversees nutrition labels. "Ultimately, the purpose of nutrition labeling is to help consumers make healthier choices, make improvements in their diet, and we want to make sure we achieve that goal."
While this eliminates a bit of personal responsibility from the equation, it does seem more logical to measure serving size in relation to how people actually eat. New numbers might not stop people from eating bigger portions than they should, but might at least add more guilt.
The main issue with targeting caloric intake is this assumes that posting calorie counts actually changes people's behavior. As we discovered last year when calorie counts went front-and-center at fast food establishments in New York City, people are likely to keep eating in the same fashion even if they are thinking about calories more.
Perhaps it would be more productive if we could have a meaningful discussion on portion size.
[Image via Flickr: evil erin]
Comments (0)