@Outrun1986: Better is just to force everyone to list "per 100ml" or "per 100g" with exceptions for smaller packages like they do in Japan. That did scare me once, though- I thought a package of Japanese candy had over 400 calories until I realized that the bag was 1/3 of the "per 100g" measure. On the plus side you also get to tell what will be let on the plane and what won't.

I heard that in order to get under the guidelines for the smart choice program, the companies were just decreasing the serving size, which also decreases the amount of sugar and everything else in a product making it compile with the guidelines, but only if the portion you eat is incredibly small. So you look at the numbers and say oh this is good for you, but in reality if you eat more than a small portion (and who doesn't) your really getting more fat and calories than you expect. I suspect other companies are doing this as well especially with foods that have too much of what they shouldn't in them.

It seems they can game even those who know to look at the numbers.

... Yeah, I know, when pigs fly.

They shouldn't be allowed to lie to us like this. I'm glad this is gone and I'd like to see other bogus labels gone too.

@Ronin-Democrat: That is my most favorite Lucy bit eeevvveerrrrr.

Are you tired, run down, listless? Do you pop out at parties? Are you unpoopular?

Hehehehe.

I think pop tarts is the worst offender of this, they are packaged as 2, but a serving is said to be 1 on the box. Who the heck eats only one?? It doesn't even come in a resealable bag.

I think if a product is packaged in a single package or single serve bottle then I think they should list the calories for both "a serving" and the whole package or bottle. Some single serve bottles actually contain 2 servings and so do some single serve bags of snacks. Some bags that appear to be single serve even contain 3 servings as per the nutritional information.

IMO this scam has gone on long enough, give us the numbers if we eat the whole thing as well as if we eat a serving.

Frankly I don't measure it either, too much trouble and well, I get pretty hungry in the morning (its the only meal of the day where I get really hungry). I fill up on basic cheerios and a banana though, hardly any sugar in there. Its about the best you can do for cereal's and I have checked all the labels.

You have a link to your marketing research to back up your facts?

My gut tells me that "most" people are not too busy or distracted to think Froot Loops are healthy because someone else says so.

@Alys Brangwin can't stop the beat: Yeah he did. Being hyperactive and incoherent all day was part of his master plan to continue to be an only child.

At least the added vitamins were in the cereal.

I forget which cereal it was, but at one point they used to print "Great source of calcium!" on their boxes. Problem is, the cereal itself contained no calcium. It's only when you poured calcium-rich milk over the cereal that, taa-daa!, the cereal suddenly becomes a "great source of calcium."

Why don't they do this with other foods? Potato Chips - A Great Source Of Calcium (when you eat them with a glass milk.)

The "healthy" breakfast consists of some kind of frozen sausage biscuit thing, a pillsbury toaster strudel and a glass of OJ. Yeah, that'll lower the heart attack risk for sure.

On their own, a glass of juice and (whole grain) toast make a fine breakfast. Cereal sabatages the whole thing by adding refined sugar, which kids do not need, and a multitude of chemicals (granted, some are vitamins and minerals) best obtained from whole foods.

Not that any of this prevented me for begging for, and sometimes getting, sugary cereals when I was a kid. I am much more strict about it with my own kids, theyve learned to not even bother asking. Consequently they haven't developed the emotional investment in them my parents let me develop.

These days I usually have a diet coke for breakfast. (I know, I know, but I wake up slow in the morning and can't cope with making my own breakfast.)

@theblackdog_HalloweenHaunting: maybe [www.gocomics.com] this will help take the edge off?

*tear*

Now that they are older, I compromise a little: up to one-fifth sugar is allowed, as long as it's not every day.

Nice work, but I'd disagree with the characterization of what the FDA did as 'bashing skulls'. More like let the various involved companies know that they actually would be enforcing existing regulations. A strongly worded letter is not bashing skulls. Even handing down fines for violations should be considered SOP. Sad that any kind of by-the-books action is seen as a smackdown.

By this logic, if I took a dump on the sidewalk and then sprinkled metamucil on top of it, it would be a "smart choice" because it was high in fiber.

What's wrong with a bowl of sugar and a Coke for breakfast? Gets you going in the morning and the 10am crash is spectacular.

@subtlefrog: Yeah, "this balanced breakfast" always seemed to consist of six muffins, an apple, an orange, a glass of milk, a slice of toast, and a soft-boiled egg. It always seemed to me that the breakfast would be just as balanced without the cereal as with.

Good riddance.