On Nov 19, 1:12*pm, "Default User" > wrote:
> James Silverton wrote:
> > Default *wrote *on 19 Nov 2009 20:01:07 GMT:
> > > Serving sizes are standardized by the FDA in the US for many
> > > products. That's to make it easy to compare one product with
> > > another.
>
> > That may be true but why should a can contain 1 1/2 servings?
>
> As I said, to make it standard. Then when you compare the nutritional
> label of one brand of soup against another, you are comparing the same
> serving size. That way you don't have a serving from one brand as one
> cup, and another 1-1/4 cups.
>

I have to wonder about this. I often look at those labels to compare
something, and the serving sizes are NOT the same amount.

For example, soda pop - the 2 liter bottle and the 20 oz bottle both
list a serving size of 8 oz. But the can lists a serving size of one
can (12 oz). I was pleased to see that it is now accurate that one can
is a serving as most people plam to drink the whole can and don't plan
on sharing it. Duh, that's one serving, not 2.

I just checked 3 cereal boxes, and they all have different serving
sizes - 27, 33, and 59 grams. Part of that is bases on how they fill
a bowl. If you compare different cereals of teh same volume, they will
have different weights. But, the volumes were also listed with
different amounts. 3/4 cup, 1 1/4 cup, and 24 biscuits.

But I see a lot of things that list much smaller servings that what
normal people eat. So, it does make the fat, calories,and sodium look
a lot lower than what people are really consuming.