# Food Labels & Diabetes - new petition!



## Stefan Diabetes UK (Mar 8, 2018)

Last year thousands of people told us, as part of the Future of Diabetes Big Conversation, that food labelling was too confusing. And that’s making it harder for people to manage their diabetes.

That’s why today we’re launching our Food Upfront petition, asking government for clear, consistent and compulsory labelling, in supermarkets and restaurants. Can you add your signature? (https://goo.gl/WMhtG3) 

Here's what we'd like to see:


Front-of-pack traffic light labelling on all pre-packaged foods sold in the UK.
Calorie labelling in key restaurants, cafes and takeaways, with carbohydrate content available online or when requested in store.
Carbohydrate content labelling on products per portion or per individual unit as prepared.

As part of the conversations we had last year, including those I had on this forum, people living with all types of diabetes told us these are changes that would make a real difference to them. And they’d also help everyone else trying to make healthier choices with their food, by making it clear what’s actually in what we're eating.

We’d like to get as many names as we can to show government that this is a really serious issue for millions of people. So please sign, and share with your friends and family  

This is just the first step in the campaign, so watch this space! You’ll have a chance to sign-up for further updates when you sign the petition. If you've any questions just reply below


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 8, 2018)

I find the traffic light system totally unhelpful to me.  It just shows sugars when it should show total carbs too.


----------



## Ljc (Mar 8, 2018)

Mark Parrott said:


> I find the traffic light system totally unhelpful to me.  It just shows sugars when it should show total carbs too.


I feel the same as you @Mark Parrott , I don’t  bother with them and turn to the label on the back.


----------



## Robin (Mar 8, 2018)

Mark Parrott said:


> I find the traffic light system totally unhelpful to me.  It just shows sugars when it should show total carbs too.


I agree, I've always ignored it. It doesn't show carbs, and it labels some things  (such as cheese) as red for fat because it goes by the percentage per 100g. I personally would never eat 100g of cheese at one sitting.
I'd also like to see a proper table on the back of goods. Sometimes they list the breakdown on the back as a continuous paragraph and it's difficult to weed out the carb content from the middle of a long script.


----------



## Ljc (Mar 8, 2018)

Done


----------



## JMyrtle (Mar 8, 2018)

Done, I couldn't understand why carbs are not listed, sugar only is not the full picture.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 8, 2018)

Hope the campaign goes well.

+1 for the complete waste of time of listing sugar on the front of a pack - particularly when it's something that is made of processed white flour.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 8, 2018)

MacDonalds put full info on all their meals, which are strictly quantity controlled.  I don’t doubt others will follow. Some of the carb contents are hair raising. 

Pizza shops will struggle, because of extra toppings.


----------



## zx10pilot (Mar 8, 2018)

Signed. And thanks for staring the petition - the current food labelling "traffic light" is utterly meaningless.
"Sugar" content may be low, but carbohydrate content very high.
Many products are marketed as healthy - they fanfare sugar as 2.6% or something daft according to the traffic light on the front, but then on the back in small print it's actually 70% carbohydrate. It's no wonder people get confused. 

I was offered some of these...
https://www.hollandandbarrett.com/shop/product/diablo-sugar-free-chocolate-chip-cookies-60028151
... when I asked to look at the label then politely declined their offer, the person actually took offence. They didn't understand the difference and thought I was being difficult. 

I learnt very quickly to ignore the traffic light labelling and now my shopping takes alot longer... but I know what I'm buying.

Regarding eating out, it is always a challenge and a certain amount of guestimation is normally required.
I often ask for a nutrition guide when out, and it's surprising the number of places that can provide alergen information & calorie content, but do not have the carb content. It really can't be that difficult to add an extra column in the data they already have as the "chain" food emporiums should be able to indicate carb content as portion control is pretty well maintained.


----------



## trophywench (Mar 8, 2018)

Rant alert.

Subway 'shops' can tell me every single thing any trainee Nutritionist could ever ask apparently - except the actual carb content of the rolls themselves and various of the fillings which comprise recipes, eg meatballs.

They are weird in there - the kids meals consist of a 4.5inch roll so that's ideal for me as TBH 6inch is too much.  However if I want more than the limited 'kids' selection of fillings - eg tuna & sweetcorn I am not allowed to have it.

So I HAVE to order a 6inch roll, with tuna & sweetcorn plus lettuce and tomato with a bit of extra mayo, eat all the filling but leave an inch or so of the bread.

I am also not allowed to have a coffee to drink, should I decide I'll have the kids size sandwich.

Hey ho - I'm not wanting to pay reduced prices, I haven't said that.  I just don't want you to give me more than I want to eat, and then make ME feel guilty for the waste.


----------



## Vince_UK (Mar 8, 2018)

Golden rule for me now is simply
"Read the back, ignore the front".
It has now become second nature even here in China.
I realised early on that carbs were not included and I was puzzled, and still am, why they aren't.
Sometimes the carb content is absolutely mind blowing.


----------



## Vince_UK (Mar 8, 2018)

I cannot open the petition by the way,it is blocked. I guess a proxy signature is unacceptable.


----------



## Sally71 (Mar 8, 2018)

Done

It really annoys me that all the fuss these days is about sugar only, and not all carbs.  I remember learning at school that all carbs turn into glucose in your digestive system, I don't know why so few other people seem to know this! If you ask people for carb information they look at you as if you are totally barmy, as if nothing can possibly be more important than calories, and why on earth would you want to know about carbs?!


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 8, 2018)

trophywench said:


> Rant alert.
> 
> Subway 'shops' can tell me every single thing any trainee Nutritionist could ever ask apparently - except the actual carb content of the rolls themselves and various of the fillings which comprise recipes, eg meatballs.
> 
> ...


They have the carb content of the rolls online.  They are all in the 40's regardless of type.  I tend to go for a salad at Subway & double the meat for a £1 extra.


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 8, 2018)

Sally71 said:


> Done
> 
> It really annoys me that all the fuss these days is about sugar only, and not all carbs.  I remember learning at school that all carbs turn into glucose in your digestive system, I don't know why so few other people seem to know this! If you ask people for carb information they look at you as if you are totally barmy, as if nothing can possibly be more important than calories, and why on earth would you want to know about carbs?!


I mentioned this following sentence in another thread & shall repeat it here.  Sugar makes us fat.  It contains no fat.  Sugar is a simple carbohydrate.  This is proof that carbohydrates make us fat.  It's not rocket science.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 8, 2018)

Forgot to mention, I’ve signed the petition.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Mar 8, 2018)

Sally71 said:


> Done
> 
> It really annoys me that all the fuss these days is about sugar only, and not all carbs.  I remember learning at school that all carbs turn into glucose in your digestive system, I don't know why so few other people seem to know this! If you ask people for carb information they look at you as if you are totally barmy, as if nothing can possibly be more important than calories, and why on earth would you want to know about carbs?!



Do you know I was thinking about this the other day, when the news was announced that Public Health England are considering recommending 400 - 600 - 600 calorie meals. I am assuming this gives a little freedom for snacks etc as RDA seems to be 2000-2500 Cals?

What struck me was how difficult those targets would be. How off-putting as a guide - because absolutely everything would need to be counted and allocated.  

I think they would have MUCH more success if they gave a guideline carb amount instead. Just like people with T1 were given not all that long ago. Much easier to count arguably the most significant macronutrient - and a cap on that would automatically limit many of the nasties that people regularly eat which blow any of these calorie guidelines out of the water. 

I can remember working out (after diagnosis) that, for example, a fast food milkshake contained a whole meal’s worth of carbs!

Those carb limits I was introduced to reduced portion sizes in a far simpler way than full calorie counting - which I don’t think I would bother with.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 8, 2018)

The trouble with that 400-600-600 plan is that it sounds horribly like rationing. The government deciding on how much you need to eat, and what,  to just keep body and soul together. Admittedly, the population were lean and healthy in the war years, and for a few years afterwards. 

Does Public Health England know something we don’t?


----------



## trophywench (Mar 9, 2018)

Fast food = the chip shop in 1972 - and with 7 chips being 10g CHO (1 exchange) one could no longer grab roe and chips in blissful ignorance!


----------



## trophywench (Mar 9, 2018)

Oh - so to eat at Subway I can only do it if I go online?  Why can't the staff tell me then if it's that easy?


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 9, 2018)

trophywench said:


> Oh - so to eat at Subway I can only do it if I go online?  Why can't the staff tell me then if it's that easy?


Because they are lazy and can't be bothered.


----------



## khskel (Mar 9, 2018)

Done


----------



## Diabetes UK (Mar 9, 2018)

Vince_UK said:


> I cannot open the petition by the way,it is blocked. I guess a proxy signature is unacceptable.



HI Vince, what error were your getting? Or what device and browser are you on? Might be an issue that we need to fix


----------



## grovesy (Mar 9, 2018)

Hannah DUK said:


> HI Vince, what error were your getting? Or what device and browser are you on? Might be an issue that we need to fix


He is in China.


----------



## Vince_UK (Mar 9, 2018)

Hannah DUK said:


> HI Vince, what error were your getting? Or what device and browser are you on? Might be an issue that we need to fix


I am in China Hannah and the link is probably blocked


----------



## Stefan Diabetes UK (Mar 9, 2018)

Thanks for all the support on this everyone  Interesting to hear how unclear labelling affects all of you at the moment too - definitely would be a boost to get that clear and consistent carb information on packaged foods, and available in restaurants, takeaways etc.

On the discussion about traffic light labelling, appreciate not everyone will find the traffic lights that useful for managing diabetes, but there is some quite strong evidence they help people generally make healthier choices, which is why we've included them in the petition. So we can keep the system as simple as possible, we're calling on the carb content to be shown separately to the traffic lights, in a clear and consistent format (which as people have mentioned certainly isn't the case now).

The petition will be open for another couple of weeks so please keep signing and sharing everyone


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 9, 2018)

May I also add that it can be very difficult to read the nutritional info on some packets because it's either underneath the seal or you have to peel a label off.


----------



## Diabetes UK (Mar 9, 2018)

Vince_UK said:


> I am in China Hannah and the link is probably blocked


My apologies Vince! Thanks for trying, not an issue I can solve in that case!


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 9, 2018)

I’m sure hiding the full info is  a deliberate ploy by the manufacturers, so they can hide all the ingredients you’ve never heard of, and certainly wouldn’t put in food at home.


----------



## DaveB (Mar 9, 2018)

Sorry but I won't be signing the petition as I don't believe in the traffic light system. Carbs should be listed as prominently as fats and proteins and sugar listed within the Carb number. There is no need to list calories at all as they are of little value (not all calories are equal etc)


----------



## Vince_UK (Mar 9, 2018)

Hannah DUK said:


> My apologies Vince! Thanks for trying, not an issue I can solve in that case!


Thanks Hannah, it is just so frustrating here at times, I am actually surprised I can still access this forum to be honest.


----------



## AndBreathe (Mar 10, 2018)

@Hannah DUK - Are you contacting local DUK groups to tell them about this?  I'm active, in a successful and active group and haven't heard about this yet (aside from this on here).  Would we expect to hear from our local DUK contact?  Not everyone is a forum member, or a member of DUK, but I'm sure some might like to boost the numbers?

I'm quite happy to mail my contacts within the group, but surely that's not an opportunity to be missed.


----------



## SB2015 (Mar 11, 2018)

I am with others about the value of carb counting rather than calorie counting.  It is the reduction in carbs (not just sugar) that had the biggest impact on my postmeal spikes in BG and led to a weight loss.

You mention having the carbs listed for a portion as prepared.  I really don’t want to weigh my food once it is prepared, I want to weigh the ingredients.  A pet hate of mine is pasta packets, where I have to do multiple calculations to work out how much to use for my own limit of 30 g of carbs.  If they tell you the carbs per portion they need to specify what size a portion is when weighing th ingredients, not what it will weigh after being cooked.  Rant (nearly) over.

Like Sally I get fed up with the focus on ‘sugar’.  It is any carbs that will add to weight gain.

I have absolutely no idea about calories, as it is enough to do checking carbs at each meal.  Like Mike, I think a focus on all carbs would help many people and ensure that they realised that all carbs matter.  

I am interested to know how you determined the three foci that you list.  I know that you say it is from the conversations, but I suspect that a lot of Practice nurses offer advice about sugars, rather then carbs, and the diet companies are keen to focus on calories and sell their ‘special foods’.

Ps I will now do the survey.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 11, 2018)

Yes, my main complaint would be the ‘portion’ size, or with bread, the per slice information. And how do you figure out on the hoof the carbs when you are told the carbs per 100g on a 175g item, as is fairly common. The manufacturers use this technique to confuse folk into thinking it is lower carb than it really is.

And what, might I ask, is a portion of crisps?


----------



## Lanny (Mar 12, 2018)

Just done that too.

I found the traffic lights system very useful as a quick look at the sugar & salt content.

As a type 2, I was taught to keep an eye on sugars & salt (sodium) & not carbs, as I'm finding out now as a new Diabetes UK member, that I need to do: my hospital diabetic team still advises a diet based on starchy carbs.


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 12, 2018)

Lan Fong Tang said:


> Just done that too.
> 
> I found the traffic lights system very useful as a quick look at the sugar & salt content.
> 
> As a type 2, I was taught to keep an eye on sugars & salt (sodium) & not carbs, as I'm finding out now as a new Diabetes UK member, that I need to do: my hospital diabetic team still advises a diet based on starchy carbs.


All carbs raise our blood sugars.  Actually, things like white bread can be worse than sugar.  Luckily, things are slowly changing and GP's are finally giving out better advice.


----------



## MikeTurin (Mar 12, 2018)

I think that the pest thing to do is to have a standard nutriotion facts label. For instance most foods sold at Lidl have this format, with a lot of useful information put in a clear way
https://static.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/20327132/nutrition_en.7.full.jpg
The only problem could be the daily allowance in percentage, because is an one size fits all that of course is not because a 150 cm tall tailor has to eat a lot less thana 200 cm tall farmer.


----------



## Lanny (Mar 12, 2018)

There have been some changes though in the guidelines by my hospital diabetic team in the 17 years since I was there after diagnosis. The blood sugar levels considered to be Hypo, Hyper & normal have changed which took me a while to get my head around. The sugar levels, worryingly?, have been relaxed a bit. 17 years ago less than 2g/100g of sugar was low sugar & more than 10g/100g was high sugar. Now it's 5g/100g & 15g/100g respectively.


----------



## Diabetes UK (Mar 20, 2018)

AndBreathe said:


> @Hannah DUK - Are you contacting local DUK groups to tell them about this?  I'm active, in a successful and active group and haven't heard about this yet (aside from this on here).  Would we expect to hear from our local DUK contact?  Not everyone is a forum member, or a member of DUK, but I'm sure some might like to boost the numbers?
> 
> I'm quite happy to mail my contacts within the group, but surely that's not an opportunity to be missed.



Hi @AndBreathe - sorry for my delay on responding to this! Thanks so much for offering your support.  Yes, we have circulated this throughout our networks, it was mentioned in our our enews and the enjoy food enewsletter, plus it was shared with many of our campaign involvement networks, such as diabetes voices.
But please do feel free to share this with any groups that you are actively a part of, as clear, consistent, and compulsory labeling has the potential to help everyone.

...Perhaps we are just too quick on the forum - you heard it here first!


----------



## DaveB (Mar 20, 2018)

Lanny said:


> Just done that too.
> 
> I found the traffic lights system very useful as a quick look at the sugar & salt content.
> 
> As a type 2, I was taught to keep an eye on sugars & salt (sodium) & not carbs, as I'm finding out now as a new Diabetes UK member, that I need to do: my hospital diabetic team still advises a diet based on starchy carbs.


Hi I'm saddened to hear that starchy carbs are still being recommended which will, of course, worsen the diabetes. Does anyone really know what the word 'starchy' REALLY means? At my visit last year to the original Jordan's Mill in Beds (and they should know) there was a pretty picture of a wheat grain with the white powdery stuff inside labelled 'Starch'. This is the bit left after all the good stuff is removed for white flour. Since when has that been good for us?


----------



## Lanny (Mar 20, 2018)

DaveB, I was told that starchy carbs are rice, potatoes & pasta. The reason given to me is they fill you up with a gradual release of  glucose & help prevent snacking between meals. I did try a few times, over the 17 years I’ve been T2, to cut down on eating starchy carbs but, found myself eating more & blood sugars going up so, went back to eating them. But, that was when I was on tablets. I’ve been on insulin for the last 6 years.

Since finding out about carb counting etc. on these forums, I’m finding that cutting down on carbs does indeed help the diabetes. I didn’t intentionally do that, though as it came about slowly & naturally when I cut all Sweeteners from my diet. I posted about it under the newbies forum.

I’ve been keeping a food diary, alongside a blood sugar diary, to show my hospital team on 22/03/18. I had a lot of hypos recently, 8 in 10 days, & my Novorapid doses were almost halved. I just counted up calories, as I didn’t know about carbs then. But, I’ve since looked up & added in the carbs. I’ve noticed that on the occasional very high after meal blood sugars I ate more carbs.

I have the written proof now & will be interested to see what my hospital team will think & say.


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 20, 2018)

Starchy carbs turn to glucose very quickly & modern day food is so processed, even wholemeal versions, that they are terrible for diabetics.


----------



## SadhbhFiadh (Mar 20, 2018)

Mark Parrott said:


> Starchy carbs turn to glucose very quickly & modern day food is so processed, even wholemeal versions, that they are terrible for diabetics.



Just about that wholemeal version, I have a friend whose husband had a bicycle in the back room, he had it rigged to grind wheat berries and rye, &c. No diabetes, just really interested in whole foods, grown organic. 
Dedicated.


----------



## Mark Parrott (Mar 20, 2018)

SadhbhFiadh said:


> Just about that wholemeal version, I have a friend whose husband had a bicycle in the back room, he had it rigged to grind wheat berries and rye, &c. No diabetes, just really interested in whole foods, grown organic.
> Dedicated.


I will do that sort of thing when I move to Hungary.


----------



## MikeTurin (Mar 21, 2018)

Mark Parrott said:


> Starchy carbs turn to glucose very quickly & modern day food is so processed, even wholemeal versions, that they are terrible for diabetics.


I suppose the problem is that modern food preparation techniques made highly refined starchy product with a small quantity of starch-resistant starches, and wholemeal in industrially processed food is made with a mix of refined ingredients that make too easier digest them


----------



## MikeTurin (Mar 21, 2018)

SadhbhFiadh said:


> Just about that wholemeal version, I have a friend whose husband had a bicycle in the back room, he had it rigged to grind wheat berries and rye, &c. No diabetes, just really interested in whole foods, grown organic.
> Dedicated.


Normally these hacks are made with rescued washing machine motors. Don't know if using electricity made it less organic. I have also seen a mill designed to be driven by a tractor PTO... http://www.newconceptindustries.com/ptorollermill.html


----------



## C&E Guy (Mar 22, 2018)

Or they could set a minimum size for the text on the back of all packages so that they are easy to read. Sometimes the carb content is miniscule and very difficult to read.


----------



## Lanny (Mar 22, 2018)

Oh, I know C&E Guy! That’s so annoying! So, I put a pair magnifying reading glasses +2.5 in my handbag to put on to read labels when buying food: stronger than my reading glasses of +1.5.


----------



## bamba (Mar 22, 2018)

What I have an issue with is the somewhat misleading statments about some noodles, pasta telling the content of the fully prepared product leaving you to work back how many carbs are in the dry version you start with.

It's probably just as well that they are currently on my "Do not even think about eating this" list for now.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 23, 2018)

But what do you add to Pasta to cook it? Water. 

Water is carb free last time I looked.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 23, 2018)

In fact, the carb count of cooked pasta is slightly lower than dry because some of the starch comes out into the water. That’s why the water looks slightly milky when you drain it.


----------



## bamba (Mar 23, 2018)

Yes but for Beachelors  Supernoolds noodles it says - for 100g pack there are 22.8g of carb per 100g.

Thats looks pretty until you realise that actually 22.8g / 100  "as prepared".

( this is not so good an example as they actually say 1/2 pack is 150g = 34.2g - prepared - most don't do this )

That 300 prepared  20g  in a pack is really 68.4g

So really the pack has 68.4g of carb unprepared.

I  could cope happily with a 23g meal of carbs - 70g would send my BG up to 15mmol/l or above.


----------



## Ralph-YK (Mar 23, 2018)

An issue for me is Diabetic Dieticians not knowing what we should be doing when we read food labels.  One told a support group to look at the traffic light for sugars.  She had no idea why anyone should be looking on the back at total carbohydrates instead.
Another Diabetic Dieticians on a label reading session told us to not bother reading the sugars, as it is included in the total carbohydrates.  Just look at toal carbohydrates.
Confusion among diabetics is made worse by HCP on such matters.


----------



## Robin (Mar 28, 2018)

I've just had a nutritional info fail. My local garden centre does pre packed gluten free brownies. They have nutritional info on the back - all 'per 100g' But NOWHERE on the pack does it tell you how much the actual brownie weighs. Rendering the information USELESS! So, it was down to guesswork again. I have emailed their customer services, and will report back if I get an answer!


----------



## C&E Guy (Mar 29, 2018)

I'm sure there will be lots of packs with unhelpful, misleading information like that on them.

You sometimes need to carry a calculator to check the "per unit" scores rather than the whole pack.


----------



## Robin (Mar 29, 2018)

C&E Guy said:


> I'm sure there will be lots of packs with unhelpful, misleading information like that on them.
> 
> You sometimes need to carry a calculator to check the "per unit" scores rather than the whole pack.


I can normally do a rough calculation in my head, but in this case, I needed to be carrying a set of weighing scales!


----------



## Robin (Mar 29, 2018)

Well, I've had a reply of sorts. They are 'passing it on' I won't hold my breath....

'We would like to apologies for the inconvenience caused due to the label on the gluten free brownie not having full information allowing you to make an informed decision.

I have passed your feedback to our food and beverage central team to look into. We really don’t like our customers to leave our centres disappointed, in fact, we want our customers to be delighted with the service we give and products we offer, and to leave with some great ideas on how to make their gardens even better.'


----------



## Iceberg (May 14, 2018)

Food labelling on packages!!! Over the past few years that I have been Diabetic this has truly driven me mad. I can only sympathise with everyone and know the frustrations of trying to read labels in the supermarkets. 
Is it to much to ask for it to be printed clearly (preferably in a size of print that is readable) and completely standardised? Personally I prefer it to be listed in a chart/grid rather than written in a single paragraph.


----------



## Stefan Diabetes UK (May 16, 2018)

Robin said:


> I've just had a nutritional info fail. My local garden centre does pre packed gluten free brownies. They have nutritional info on the back - all 'per 100g' But NOWHERE on the pack does it tell you how much the actual brownie weighs. Rendering the information USELESS! So, it was down to guesswork again. I have emailed their customer services, and will report back if I get an answer!
> View attachment 7514



Thanks for sharing this @Robin - that's a very good example of a unhelpful label. If anyone else has seen anything similarly useless please do share it here, or send it through to diabetesvoices@diabetes.org.uk


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 16, 2018)

Stefan Diabetes UK said:


> Thanks for sharing this @Robin - that's a very good example of a unhelpful label. If anyone else has seen anything similarly useless please do share it here, or send it through to diabetesvoices@diabetes.org.uk



Almost all similarly sized snack in my experience @Stefan Diabetes UK!

Admittedly we know when buying these that they are not the easiest choices BG wise, but most of those cake/flapjack/snackbar things that get sold alongside coffee have per 100g carbs and no weight.

Sainsbury's infuriated me beyone belief a year or two ago where they listed 'per 100g' for everything, but only flagged up 'per portion' for sugar, fat etc on the fronts in big lettering. Again, often with no weight involved. So you had to use the per portion far and the per 100g fat to work out the portion size then use the per 100g carbs to calculate the per portion carbs.

Per portion sugar is next to useless when whatever it is is made of highly refined flour, but the emphasis is so much on 'sugar tax' and 'sugar is bad' these days that carbs are getting let off scot free


----------



## bamba (May 16, 2018)

everydayupsanddowns said:


> Per portion sugar is next to useless when whatever it is is made of highly refined flour, but the emphasis is so much on 'sugar tax' and 'sugar is bad' these days that carbs are getting let off scot free


It also stops you from finding out that they think half a muffin is a 'portion'


----------



## PhoebeC (May 16, 2018)

I was saying this the other day about chocolate. Sell things like this, crisps, chocolate in the portion size! why would I think one kit kat is two portions. Drives me made. Or 4 blocks of a 6 block bar! 
I know lets eat half a pack of crisps, said no on ever!


----------



## mikeyB (May 16, 2018)

Well, what I would like to know what the portion size of Pringles is. 

None, is my guess, but I would love to know what their opinion is


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 16, 2018)

PhoebeC said:


> I was saying this the other day about chocolate. Sell things like this, crisps, chocolate in the portion size! why would I think one kit kat is two portions. Drives me made. Or 4 blocks of a 6 block bar!
> I know lets eat half a pack of crisps, said no on ever!



Soft drinks are just the same. It's almost as if stupidly small portion sizes are simply a cynical way of getting around food labelling requirements. Thank goodness we know that the food industry only has our health and best interests at heart!


----------



## Beck S (May 17, 2018)

The stupid thing is, there's plenty of space on that brownie packet to put the weight in, but they just haven't.  I thought that was required by law anyway.  Maybe not.



everydayupsanddowns said:


> Soft drinks are just the same. It's almost as if stupidly small portion sizes are simply a cynical way of getting around food labelling requirements. Thank goodness we know that the food industry only has our health and best interests at heart!


I never actually realised until recently that a 500ml bottle of fizzy is classed as 2 portions.  That makes a can about 1.25 portions.  Who's going to drink most of a can but leave a bit at the bottom until later?


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (May 17, 2018)

I am convinced the 380ml bottles used to say ‘contains 2 servings’. But now they say it is only one.

If my recollection is right, I’d put money on the change happening when they reduced the sugar content as the serving size probably snuck under the labelling guidance 

Of course now I need half a bottle rather than a few swigs to get 15g of carbs to treat a hypo.


----------



## Radders (May 17, 2018)

I have noticed that the dilution instructions for the sugary squash my other half sometimes buys render the drink extremely weak and tasteless. I think this is a cynical way of reducing the sugar content per serving.


----------



## Robin (May 19, 2018)

Beck S said:


> The stupid thing is, there's plenty of space on that brownie packet to put the weight in, but they just haven't. I thought that was required by law anyway. Maybe not.


Funnily enough since my email, when I went to the garden centre again, they seemed to have stopped selling the entire range of own brand brownie and other bars. Perhaps they've realised they should have the weight on them.

As a footnote to the comments on portion size, I am in the US at the moment. We bought a pack of 6 mini donuts for the whole family of 4 to share. One donut was 10 carbs. When I looked at the nutritional info on the back, it said 'portion size, one pack' That's 60 carbs! ( can't remember the calories, but must have been a fair few)


----------



## Radders (May 19, 2018)

Bought a carton of Ribena yesterday as I was low and unable to find the dextrosol in my handbag. A single carton used to be nearly 30g sugar so I was only expecting to drink half of it. Good job I put my specs on and checked as it was only 11.8g. Thankfully it was enough to get me out of hypoland.


----------



## Beck S (May 21, 2018)

This is the main issue with the change towards lower sugar.  It's great and I'm all for it, but it means we have to be more vigilant.


----------

