|
|
|
|
|
|
by StavrosK
3982 days ago
|
|
|
Are you seriously arguing for arbitrary units rather than consistent ones, because "you buy larger sizes of bags"? Every piece of food has nutritional information at the back, with columns for 100 grams and one serving. You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case? For every coke bottle this fails, I have five cans it succeeds for. Nobody drinks a third of a can of coke. |
|
|
Actually, no, that's what you're doing. You said that that whatever amount is in the container should be "one serving." That's clearly ridiculous and arbitrary in many cases, which was my point. I would contend that they (manufacturer, regulator, whoever) should choose some reasonable, non-arbitrary size and stick with it. Then at least I can compare two different-sized packages with a hope of figuring out what's going on. Using 100 grams would actually be a reasonable idea, but is not what you actually said in your prior messages.
>>You're arguing that the serving size should unrealistically small, rather than the whole bag, because it doesn't work for every case?
You're arguing that the serving size should be unrealistically large, rather than a some reasonable size, because you think everyone always eats the entire package?
Incidentally, I'm curious - when they sell a 24-pack of Coke, are they supposed to show the values for the individual cans, or for the entire case? You keep saying that people consume the entire unit - so that would be the entire case, right? What about for 2-liter bottles? What about for things that aren't junk food?