You haven’t made anything resembling a coherent point after 2 pages worth of feeble attempts.
Part of the reason I don’t buy chips anymore (or why I buy them so rarely) is that it’s impossible to buy loose single serving bags anymore. Everything from Doritos to Lays to Combos comes in larger packaging than I remember, and all are in the 2.5-4 servings range. I like all those snacks, but I will only buy them rarely (like to try the chicken & waffles flavor) because I know if I open a larger bag, I will feel compelled to eat the whole thing. With the properly sized single servings, this is not an issue. But I can’t find the damned things! The variety pack is a good idea, though, but I would like to see single serving packages available in the snack aisle. I really don’t need 30 packs of chips in my house, either.
Ah, yeah, a 1/2 oz would be a half serving, then.
Uh-huh.
I venture a guess that you work in advertising, marketing and/or consumer product sales. And probably bitch endlessly about all the damned rules and regs.
Blame Wal*Mart and even more Sam’s Club. They started the heavy trend of selling by price point rather than practicality, need or use.
Most people wouldn’t pay, say, $1.49 for a one-ounce bag of chips. So instead of selling that ounce for 79 or 99 cents, they up the (essentially costless) portion to the point where a buck and a half seems like a reasonable deal. Or put things in 2-packs or 3-packs, multiplying their revenue per sale at almost no reduction in profit.
It’s not new, but it exploded about ten years ago when Sam’s, Price Club and Costco concentrated on minimax pricing - getting people to pay the maximum amount for a product by juggling the amount of product sold.
See, that’s sort of funny, because I think it was you who said a pint of ice cream being four servings sounded about right. I only get two or three, but I can usually put down a bag of chips.
Anyway, dumb of me to bring up ice cream serving sizes in a thread about food products that aren’t as healthy as they seem. Very few people would consider ice cream or chips as healthy foods.
A better example of tricky or even misleading serving sizes might be cooking sprays like Pam, which base their nutritional value on such a tiny serving size that you’d have to spray the can for less than half a second to coat a pan. Don’t know about you but when I use that stuff, I use more than half a second’s worth. And then there’s coffee creamer, which I don’t use at all but has a teaspoon for the serving size. Quantities of fat below 0.5 grams per serving can be labelled as zero fat in the US. If somebody used two tablespoons of creamer-- I know people at work who use more milk than that-- they might think they were getting zero fat but they’d get “50 calories and 1.6 grams of saturated fat. That’s almost identical to two tablespoons of ordinary half and half: about 40 calories and two grams of saturated fat.” The Problem With Serving Sizes - The New York Times
There’s a couple Australian foods that I consider to be advertised as healthy foods in a deceptive manner, like Nutri-Grain, which is just another sugar-coated kiddie cereal but is marked as “Iron Man Food” like marathoners gobble it up before a race. Another is Milo, which is basically a chocolate milk powder that doesn’t dissolve well. It has vitamins and typically shows athletes on the label, but it’s got plenty of sugar and sticks to your teeth. Dentists secretly love it, no doubt.
That article I linked points out that serving sizes in the US are set by the FDA, not the companies. So there’s probably cases where manufacturers are simply producing larger packages containing 1.5 or more recommended servings due to demand on the part of consumers, not a plot to scam people into obesity and hypertension. The industry probably would oppose new serving sizes, though, just because of the costs of new labels (I’m guessing).
Incidentally, one ounce of Doritos is about 12 chips, which is, indeed, the recommended serving size, but well short of the 20 chips you estimated to be in a serving, pulykamell. I think 20 sounds more like it, too.
It’s your secret to looking young, right?
Sure, I understand the basic economics of it. I just don’t like it. About the only MEGASUPERSIZED thing I actually do like is those ridiculous gas station sizes of soft drinks. Fill one of those up for next to nothing with Diet Coke and the wife and I are good for awhile on the road.
As for the main point in the OP, I personally have nothing to do with advertising or sales or anything like that, but I think people can reasonably disagree here. The information is transparent, the labeling is clear, it’s pretty easy to figure out the nutritional value of a product. Personally, I check labels all the time. That’s why I know that granola bars, for the most part, are just sugar bombs and no healthier than, say, a Snickers bar. And they are often marketed in a “health food” manner, so I’d argue those are even more deceiving. And same with the orange juice (or most fruit juices) example brought up a couple times in this thread. They’re basically little better than sugar water.
Yes, that is me who said that. I’m unsure of what point you’re trying to make here.
When I use PAM, it’s just enough to cover the pan with a thin coat of oil so, yes, about 1/2 second. Maybe even less. Just a quick spritz over the pan. Pam isn’t some sort of magic. It’s just oil in aerosol form. It has pretty much the same calorie content as any other fat, so if you spray a teaspoon of PAM onto a pan, you got almost the same amount of calories as a teaspoon of oil. (There is a little bit of alcohol in PAM which makes the calorie content slightly less but, essentially, it’s just oil.)
The nutritional panel is only there because it’s been laboriously legislated into existence, and it’s still got many loopholes about what has to be listed, and how - example being the “serving size,” which has been strengthened a couple of times but still allows the kind of nonsense we’ve discussed here. I don’t see it as a leveler between manufacturer and consumer; at best it’s an affadavit (:D) forced out of the maker by the FDA.
Outside of that black box, the manufacturer is free to present the product in almost any way they like - so a gooey pseudo-chocolate spread that’s essentially half bottled fat and half added sugar is labeled “Hazelnut spread with skim milk and cocoa.” That line is, IMVHO, so deceptive as to inspire awe; it’s like labeling a Coke “Pure water with natural flavorings and a touch of sweetness.” True in every word, utterly false in every reasonable interpretation.
Try this: take a product off the shelf and read every word EXCEPT the mandated, limited and incomplete nutrition box. Does the rest of the packaging present the product in a way that a consumer can make a reasonable judgment about what’s actually in there, in what proportions, and use general knowledge to make assumptions about its relative healthiness and nutrition? Or has that box simply turned into a license to use wild and meaningless distortions on all the rest of the labeling?
That people are defending this practice and accepting the utterly begrudged inclusion of a government-mandated label as an overall good thing says a great deal about how deeply conditioned we’ve become to let the sellers call the shots in our lives. Being “smart enough” to read the nutrition box isn’t much different from being “smart enough” to push the lever to get another tasty treat.
Is it really fair to put so much of the blame on the Nutella? I mean, you already had two HUGE risk factors for thrush in the pregnancy and the antibiotics. Those alone could have been the cause even if you hadn’t indulged a little. What if you had had jam on your toast each morning…would you be as angry at your jar of Smuckers? And what about the benefit of those moments of bliss as you licked the spoon? Are those totally negated now?
I’m so much more shocked at the level of hate for anything sugar-related than I am at any attempts by the advertisers to sell their product. No one on the planet (except the doofus who filed that lawsuit) thinks of Nutella as health food. Moderation in indulging in it is something everyone over the age of ten knows. And your life and body will not be ruined if you eat a variety of foods that includes a sweet treat. Lighten up and enjoy food as the pleasure it can be. Don’t treat it like it is something that can only be good for you if it is awful, boring and tasteless.
Wrong on all counts. At least you’re consistent.
I wouldn’t say a “touch of sweetness” makes it true in every word. But, otherwise, yeah, I have no problem with Coke marketing it that way.
Why aren’t you railing against the juice companies and granola companies, too, who are, IMHO, even more deceptive?
I know, but it’s the association that I have now that physically turns me off even tough I still mentally crave sweets. Physically I can barely eat anything sweet now, which may be a good thing since I have gained less than 20lbs this pregnancy. Same thing happens if I eat something and throw up afterwards, that food goes on my can’t stomach list for a while. Perhaps in a year or two I will be back to loving Nutella, but tis not so right now.
More Nutella cake for me…
…although I prefer Nussfit.
Like, just to throw one out there, I find this Ocean Spray “100% Juice Cranberry” to be even more deceptive.
It’s not 100% cranberry juice, first of all, which the commercial seems to suggest. It’s a blend of four juices: cranberry, apple, grape, and pear. It also has “natural flavor,” “pectin,” and “ascorbic acid” (vitamin C). (And, yes, I’ve had pure cranberry juice, so I know what it tastes like. And, yes, for me the big “100% Juice” is a warning to read the label and figure out what exactly is going on.)
Second, it’s advertised as “tastes good, good for you.” The only way it’s “good for you” is for the Vitamin C content, which is upped to 100% USRDA for an 8 oz glass. Otherwise, it is all sugars, an no other nutrition.
How is this any less deceptive than the Nutella ad?
Wow, this is enlightening. Frosting? I never noticed.
Who said I’m not?
Not you, personally, but the tendency here to argue by inclusion drives me up the wall. I started this thread to discuss a particular product that, IMO, goes to absolutely extraordinary lengths to present their nutritionally worthless - even nutritionally damaging - product as something healthful and benign. That doesn’t mean I think no other product does so, or even that Nutella is the worst food item on the shelf - but I am having trouble thinking of many others that have such a vast gap between the reality of the nutribox and the rest of the presentation.
I disagree with your blanket assertions about fruit juice - assuming we’re both talking about real, reasonably unprocessed and non-additive juices, not the vast array of sludge called juice because the bottles were driven through an orchard on the way to the chemical plant. But that’s another thread.
I concede that most of what’s sold in modern grocery stores is somewhere between substandard and, well, Nutella. Which includes nearly everything on the cereal aisle, and you’re right that the louder a cereal shouts “healthy!” the more likely it is to make Cocoa Puffs look nutritious.
What I don’t concede, on the widest possible scope, is that it’s just too damn bad and the buyer’s fault if they buy sludge food; that those who are “smart enough” shop by the nutribox and ignore everything else; and especially, that as a nation we can’t do better than to control food marketing with the equivalent of one of those little plastic swords you get in hors-d’oeuvres. Only in the most extreme Randian viewpoint should the laws favor freedom for sellers over protection for buyer - but they do. Food sellers can say almost anything, present their product in any imaginable way, with reality constricted to a few square inches of dense type. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t think that’s ethical, allowable or “right” on any level.
Well, the thread title is “most deceptive product on the shelf?” And I think, no, not by a longshot. I do not, personally, think Nutella is being particularly egregious here. You disagree.
Then we disagree. Eat the fruit. The juice is basically just sugar water, with some nutrients. Yes, it is slightly healthier, but not by much.
Even one of our esteemed resident doctors, Qadgop the Mercotan says in this thread: