The Off Topic Topic

[Josquius]

It is nonsensical. Why divide the package into arbitrary servings?  Just give the overall information for the contents of the packet.
The only sensible reason to go into servings is when you're on about rather large solid things where there is clearly one per serving.
When they to into "calories per handful" and all that it's just useless.

I really think some people could be getting misled by not examining every inch of the packet.

[jimmy olsen]

Got to agree with Tyr, it's total bullshit.

IIRC in the US there has been some reform on the issue. With serving sizes being expanded to what people actually eat, and for many things that people eat in one shot serviving sizes was done away with for just the total calories.

[Tonitrus]

Or just exercise some of those math skills. 

[Liep]

Went to the dentist for a regular cleaning. €110.

[Liep]

1st World Problem: The delicatessen around the corner has closed down and instead we'll get another coffee shop. That's the 7th coffee shop around the square I live near (12th if you count side streets). 

I wonder what will move into the used books shop that also closed a while ago.

[Caliga]

Went to the dentist for a regular cleaning. €110.

It costs me nothing when I go.

[Jaron]

If a food item has multiple servings you shouldn't be eating it alone.

[Grey Fox]

God dammit.
So it's now the law in most civilized countries that calorie information be displayed on food packets.
So you get your big bag of whatever. You look at the calorie info "240 calories per 100g" - Ahhh.... Ok..... I guess.... That's... Just once....
....
Wait....
100g? That sound awfully small....
It must say the size of this packet somewhere....
Oh there- 330g.

So how the hell does that 100g reading help the casual member of the public?

You work for a food company, you have the power to change it.

[Malthus]

It is nonsensical. Why divide the package into arbitrary servings?  Just give the overall information for the contents of the packet.
The only sensible reason to go into servings is when you're on about rather large solid things where there is clearly one per serving.
When they to into "calories per handful" and all that it's just useless.

I really think some people could be getting misled by not examining every inch of the packet.

It's done so consumers can compare like with like.

Otherwise, the head-math is even harder, with even more room for misinterpretation: is this food lower in calories than that, when one food is 260 cal per package (which is 220 g., but is divided into six servings and you normally eat one per meal) or that food (which is 380 cal per package, which package is 460 g but divided into eight servings?)

[Liep]

It is nonsensical. Why divide the package into arbitrary servings?  Just give the overall information for the contents of the packet.
The only sensible reason to go into servings is when you're on about rather large solid things where there is clearly one per serving.
When they to into "calories per handful" and all that it's just useless.

I really think some people could be getting misled by not examining every inch of the packet.

It's done so consumers can compare like with like.

Otherwise, the head-math is even harder, with even more room for misinterpretation: is this food lower in calories than that, when one food is 260 cal per package (which is 220 g., but is divided into six servings and you normally eat one per meal) or that food (which is 380 cal per package, which package is 460 g but divided into eight servings?)

The 100g might be, but here the "servings" which are the ones required to be on the front side are quite arbitrary. For example a half liter of cola has a serving of 250ml, a bag of chips has a serving of 35g, etc.

[Malthus]

It is nonsensical. Why divide the package into arbitrary servings?  Just give the overall information for the contents of the packet.
The only sensible reason to go into servings is when you're on about rather large solid things where there is clearly one per serving.
When they to into "calories per handful" and all that it's just useless.

I really think some people could be getting misled by not examining every inch of the packet.

It's done so consumers can compare like with like.

Otherwise, the head-math is even harder, with even more room for misinterpretation: is this food lower in calories than that, when one food is 260 cal per package (which is 220 g., but is divided into six servings and you normally eat one per meal) or that food (which is 380 cal per package, which package is 460 g but divided into eight servings?)

The 100g might be, but here the "servings" which are the ones required to be on the front side are quite arbitrary. For example a half liter of cola has a serving of 250ml, a bag of chips has a serving of 35g, etc.

Here in Canada at least, they are established by regulation - to prevent manufacturers from gaming their labelling by simply making up their own.

More than you ever wanted to know on the topic:  http://www.inspection.gc.ca/food/labelling/food-labelling-for-industry/nutrition-labelling/information-within-the-nutrition-facts-table/eng/1389198568400/1389198597278?chap=5

[Zanza]

I hate hay fever.

[Sheilbh]

Yep to Malt and in the UK they show both per 100g and per x gram average serving.

[Admiral Yi]

I hate hay fever.

Claritin.

[crazy canuck]

I hate hay fever.

Lots of sneezing going on in these parts.  Seems to be a bad year.