 |
| Figure 3 |
When looking at a nutrition label, the first thing you should look at (literally) is serving size. I’ll admit it, I’m not an expert at nutrition label reading, nor do I really care to read them, but serving size is one of the main things I pay attention to when I do. Now, don’t think I read nutrition labels or look at serving sizes because I’m concerned about my weight. I would rather eat a lot of what I love (chocolate) and keep the extra pounds rather than staring longingly at that extra cookie I can’t have. Personally, I look at the serving size on nutrition labels to see how honest the food distribution company whose product I’ve purchased is being with me.
For example, in his skit, comedian Brain Regan pokes fun at the serving size on a box of Nabisco Fig Newtons. Regan states that his doctor told him to “watch what [he’s] eating” and to “read food labels.” He stops in the middle of inspecting the label, whose “fat content looked good” and notes the serving size is only two cookies. I share Regan’s disbelief that a single serving of Fig Newtons is only 31 grams, or two cookies. Does Nabisco honestly believe that the average consumer will only eat two Fig Newtons? As Regan also states, I eat Fig Newtons by the sleeve. In his act, Regan points out the obvious disconnect between food distributers and the public.
So are the food labels themselves to blame? The Food and Drug Administration, the agency that regulates food labels, states in their 1996 study that food labels serve to aid consumers in “comparing two products, judging healthfulness, verifying claims, estimating servings needed to meet the daily requirements for a nutrient, and balancing nutrients in a daily diet” (Levy, Fein, & Schucker). While the FDA has given the public a tool to muddle through our beloved artificially produced food, the malleability of food labels easily allows big food distributors to trick the public into buying their product. Who actually has time to convert a serving size given in grams into an actual edible object? Food labels are supposed to illustrate what consumers are putting into their bodies, not serve as a way to backhandedly gain a buyer’s trust.
It pains me that it’s come to the point that you have to bring your ‘A’ game to the supermarket. Walking through those middle aisles give me a bigger headache than watching Rick Perry stumbling through a speech. Big food companies will try just about anything to get you to purchase their product, whether it be through advertising Sour Patch Kids as a “fat free food,” offering lower prices than a leading competitor, or manipulating serving sizes in order to make nutrition values look more favorable. American values of big production and low cost become glaringly obvious when it’s staring back up at you in the form of a giant nine dollar steak on your dinner plate. If you care about what you eat, be smart. Don’t let the big guys (or food labels) fool you. Next time you go to grab those processed fruit-filled treats, ask yourself, can you have just two?
Figure 3 is a direct picture from the NabiscoWorld website of the Nutrition Facts of a 1lb. bag of Fig Newtons.
No comments:
Post a Comment