I hate it when I’m eating a bunch of crackers and I look on the box and the serving size is like “3 crackers” and all the calories and nutrition info are based on this absurdly small number. So I was glad to turn over my bottle of Coke and see that they were including both a “Standard Serving” and a “This Package” label. On the left it shows how many calories and such are in a regular can. On the right it shows how much is in the bottle. It’s nice that there’s a comparison. It’s also nice that they’re not giving the nutrition info as if someone was going to drink from the bottle at two and a half different meals. Let’s see this spirit of packaging transparency leveraged across the entire food industry.
More From Consumerist
-
Coke & Pepsi Vending Machines Will Get Calorie Counts, Push Low-Calorie Drinks
-
Why The Math On Your Soda Bottles & Cans Doesn’t Always Add Up
-
Coroner Concludes Woman’s 2 Gallon A Day Coca-Cola Habit “A Substantial Factor” In Her Death
-
Coca-Cola Says It Will Stop Marketing To Kids
-
How Did A Coke Only Cost A Nickel For 70 Years? Because Coca-Cola Said So
Math hell. No one should have to worry about figuring out the actual numbers on a single person container! It shouldn’t even be legal for companies to count it as more than one serving on products like that!
I mean, 2 servings on a small package of dried ramen noodles!? That is so bogus!
Because I can’t be bothered to multiply something by 2.5. Give me a @#%$&*% break.
A Friend brought me back some Curly Wurlys back from England and I noticed everything he brought back was labeled like this. I thought it was a Brit thing.
Wow. Yay Coke. Nice to see a company showing a little common sense. (Though in their defense, I think “serving sizes” are beyond the control of the companies; they have to do the 2/5 of a bottle crap.)
Sorry, I agree that doing some multiplication isn’t that hard. And if you’re eating more than 3-5 cookies, there’s a problem already. Like someone else said, the standardized serving size is a good thing. Not everyone eats the same number of cookies or tubs of ice cream or whatever.
The thing that makes the most sense: Don’t drink soft drinks.
This is done on Aussie packaging…sort of. Everything is metric here, first, so we’re working in grams or mililitres, not ounces. Every package has the nutrition and kilojoule information (by the way–kilojoules are evil and I cannot comprehend them in comparison to calories, no matter how many times I look up the conversion) for the serving size, whatever that may be, and a 100g/ml portion. So you can compare between two brands, which might have different sizes of both box and portion, which is pretty awesome.
Sadly, they have NOT embraced the concept of giving me the price/gram or ml (like price/oz) on the price tags in grocery stores. Since I learned to comparison shop that way in the US, I find it really difficult to effectively comparison shop if I’m in a hurry–if I have time to do the math for the total quantity to price ratios for similar products, fine, but it’s obnoxious.
14 g of sugar is about 3.5 teaspoons. Not sure this is what we need to be drinking, either. How about PLAIN WATER!
@morganlh85:
Uh, yeah. But I have never heard of rounding 240 to 250. Or 87.5 to 75.