Are the number of servings not at the top of the label, above the rest of the contents?
I believe so.
I also agree that one must read the entire label with things that must be cooked and some have two parts. They can be confusing, at first glance, but when you read the whole thing it is always clear... as long as you read it all and not just skim it.
Again, in the hands of the consumer... all depends on what one wants to do.

Good information given by all of you.

Sure, but when you buy a package containing 6 cookies, and the label says one portion/serving is four cookies, they are obviously being deceptive. Just trying to make the first glance numbers look better.:mad:

I try to be a man of science, so hard numbers like the "Nutrition Facts" panel are always on my side.

The problem I have is that I also tend to cook and bake a lot of my own stuff. Going off and working out the math from the information given on all of the ingredients and then figuring out what a proper serving is becomes a total hassle. Here's a simple one: frozen chicken thighs. (hey, they're dirt cheap, and it's almost impossible to overcook dark meat). So there's information on the bag as to what the chicken does/doesn't provide. In the simplest case, I'll take 'em frozen, add a little salt and pepper, maybe a little worcestershire sauce, and bake 'em as is. When all is said and done, there's a pretty substantial amount of fat and oils and other stuffs that's been rendered out at the end. I'd presume the mandatory labelling can't account for every preparatory method, so I've always assumed those numbers to meant uncooked. As packaged. Whatever.

The long and short of it is that yes, I could do all sorts of measurements and seriously micromanage my diet. Work out the math when I take some of the leftover chicken and make a chicken salad sandwich later. Being all self-righteously scientific, I actually feel guilty that I never perform such discipline.

I'd much rather stick to some basic rules of thumb (such as the previously mentioned "meat serving about the size of a deck of cards", etc.) I still read package labels, but I'm not religious about it (note that a 16oz bottle of water lists the servings per container as "two")

Having read through the thread, it sounds like most people here have a decent understanding of nutrition. I'm sure there's not a one of us that couldn't eat a little better or exercise a little more.

In fact, the only thing I can advise to anyone is to try to fold some frugality in with their consumption. Ok, so the 1.5 serving cookie "snack pack" is a little ridiculous, but have a couple now and then fold over the wrapper and stick a paper clip on it. Have the others the next day. Most of that sort of thing is so chock-full of preservatives that it's not like they'll be inedible just because you broke the seal 24 hours ago. It's neither wasteful nor indulgent. One of the tricks I've been using is to wash out every resealable container I get, and use those to portion stuff. An empty "single serving" yogurt container is pretty good at splitting up the average can of condensed soup. It looks a little cheap, but shit, if I'm ever being judged on the quality of my tupperware, fuck it.

Bonus: If anyone can figure out what my point was, let me know. I think I'm rambling.

-dis

How is it deceptive if the information is there, in the same place it is on ever other label?

He didn't say it was a lie.

I know what he said and I responded accordingly with my question.
How did you read "lie" into that?
So, if you buy an uncut pie is that an "implied" single portion? People need to learn some accountability.

Ack. I shudder just thinking about having to teach people enough math to wrangle the same-size portion out of any uncut pie.

It's not like it's hard to explain to people how to eyeball a certain angle (as opposed to having them reach for a protractor each time), but as most store-bought pies come in similar plastic cases, maybe it would be easier for them to screen print a template on the lid for "suggested serving size".

At the very least, it would let people see what sort of wedge they should slice out to be in compliance with the label. How they act upon it beyond that? Their problem.

-dis

Well, you implied that something can't be deceptive if the information is there. Something can't be a lie if the information is there, but it certainly can be deceptive.

If the information is clearly stated in a form that is easy to understand... I just don't see how.

Do you really think that because someone may be off by 1/2 a serving of a cookie pack from time-to-time, they will be overweight and there is no other reason?
Come on dude? Really. That is the worst case of enabling I have ever read. If it is on there clearly, in English, they know. We know anyway, seriously. I'm overweight and have to watch everything I eat for many reasons... I look at the label and don't need a trig calculator. They are clear.
You made a couple, but the one that I think is most valid to this discussion is that if you get a 1.5 serving cookie pack you KNOW what the ingredients/contents of that package are and how much of it you should, or should not, eat.
It is that simple... so, you are in COMPLETE control of whether you overeat or not.

I do accept that if people overeat, they need to take responsibility for this. Of course they do! But I also know that if I order a "meal" - because it's easy, because it works out cheaper, because I can't be bothered to think - I will eat and drink everything there in front of me.

I find it hard to buy cans in the shops close to my office now. Cans contain 440ml and having drunk them for years I am conditioned to that being a thirst quenching amount. Now the sandwich shops all carry 500ml bottles. I drink it all (and burp all afternoon).

Yes I know I can choose to throw it away. No I'm not stupid. But neither are the fast food or soft drink manufacturers. They know that they can encourage people to eat and drink more when it is against their (the people's) best interest. And they do this for profit.

Why shouldn't they take some responsibility? Why would Burger King put the Enormous Omelet Sandwich on their menu? Because they know there are people out there who don't have enough self control to resist breakfasting on 730 calories and 46gr of fat. The sort of person who would buy that is not the sort of person currently capable of making healthy choices - it's a self fulfilling prophecy.

Don't hold your AA meeting in the back room of a pub. Don't have a cigarette vending machine on a cancer ward. Don't keep increasing portion sizes when your customers are overweight.

You can lay it at their door if you like, but you lift that fork to your mouth, you choose to or not.
The choice is always yours.

Now you're saying something I never said.

Look, people, seriously, rkzenrage is RIGHT. If you eat it, it's YOUR responsibility. The company you buy it from has NO responsibility at ALL to make sure that you eat healthily.

Oh I agree.

But I also think it is a marketing ploy to use wacky product sizes with convoluted portion descriptions. If I am on a diet and want one serving of ABC but they only sell 1.795 serving sized packets, the temptation to eat/drink the entire thing is there. And in some cases, the extra product is not saveable after you eat your 1 serving portion. So you feel guilty for wasting it and eat/drink it anyway. (My mama taught me to eat everything on my plate, a very hard habit to break).

It's as much a marketing ploy as putting snacks by the checkout and impulse items on the end of the isle. Sneaky!

I have learned to stop eating before I'm full, to eat only when I'm really hungry (as opposed to bored), and to carefully consider the portion sizes I intake. I just avoid fast food altogether, they have nothing good for me there :right: Yes, what and how much I eat is my choice, but the manner in which many products are marketed don't always make it easy.

Stormie