Re:Beware of 'shrinkflation,' inflation's devious cousin
by pkaye on Friday August 06, 2021 @01:25PM
(#28090285)
A recent change in US nutrition labels is the serving size should be more realistic so they update the numbers to match consumer behavior. The other thing is consumption is influenced by container size. People tend to drink entire bottles of soda regardless of size so labeling should reflect that.
https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nut...
Re:Beware of 'shrinkflation,' inflation's devious cousin
by c618b9b695c4 on Friday August 06, 2021 @01:41PM
(#28090506)
Still not great leaving it up to manufacturers. Would have loved if it was a flat XX/100grams plus an additional column of XX/package.
Re:Beware of 'shrinkflation,' inflation's devious cousin
by SCHiM on Friday August 06, 2021 @06:04PM
(#28093289)
I mean, obviously the best thing is:
1gram, 100gram, container size.
That way: you always know the exact amount you're actually buying, + it's easy to calculate if you consume less than the container, either by nx the amount of 1gram or nx100 gram of the product. Nothing else really makes sense, for any reason.
Portion sizes of 65 gram in a 90 gram container. Then the label shows for 10 gram, portion size, and 100 grams. But not the actual weight of the container!
I mean, what 'portion' consists of 65/90th of a container? They know full well that the actual portion people consume $PRODUCT in is what is in the box.