Type 1 - Connect

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per ‘serve’ (or as well as ‘serve’ data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it’s much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 ‘serves’ in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I’m cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob

Hi Kate
I heartily agree that the nutritional labelling, especially carbohydrate content, leaves much to be desired for TIDs who need a very accurate figures. I have had some packets where the number of suggested serves is say 2.3 or some other totally impracticable figure. Unless a Nobel laureate in maths one needs to get the calculator out to work out the carb load. I suspect the definition of a serve is designed by the companies' marketers not their nutritionists! and of course the required/need serve varies widely between individuals. I sometimes use the per 100gms figure to calculate.

It would be good for Diabetes Australia to lobby for data that is readily useful fro TIDs.

Harwood

------------------------------
Harwood
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 13-07-2020 18:44
From: Benjamin
Subject: Product labelling

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per 'serve' (or as well as 'serve' data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it's much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 'serves' in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I'm cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob

Hi Harwood
yes - we usually use the 109gm figure too, but a 420gm can or 380ml jar still requires more maths than I care for! 

------------------------------
Kate (mother of T1)
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 14-07-2020 17:55
From: Harwood
Subject: Product labelling

Hi Kate
I heartily agree that the nutritional labelling, especially carbohydrate content, leaves much to be desired for TIDs who need a very accurate figures. I have had some packets where the number of suggested serves is say 2.3 or some other totally impracticable figure. Unless a Nobel laureate in maths one needs to get the calculator out to work out the carb load. I suspect the definition of a serve is designed by the companies' marketers not their nutritionists! and of course the required/need serve varies widely between individuals. I sometimes use the per 100gms figure to calculate.

It would be good for Diabetes Australia to lobby for data that is readily useful fro TIDs.

Harwood

------------------------------
Harwood

Original Message:
Sent: 13-07-2020 18:44
From: Benjamin
Subject: Product labelling

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per 'serve' (or as well as 'serve' data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it's much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 'serves' in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I'm cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob

Original Message:
Sent: 7/14/2020 3:55:00 AM
From: Harwood
Subject: RE: Product labelling

Hi Kate
I heartily agree that the nutritional labelling, especially carbohydrate content, leaves much to be desired for TIDs who need a very accurate figures. I have had some packets where the number of suggested serves is say 2.3 or some other totally impracticable figure. Unless a Nobel laureate in maths one needs to get the calculator out to work out the carb load. I suspect the definition of a serve is designed by the companies' marketers not their nutritionists! and of course the required/need serve varies widely between individuals. I sometimes use the per 100gms figure to calculate.

It would be good for Diabetes Australia to lobby for data that is readily useful fro TIDs.

Harwood

------------------------------
Harwood
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 13-07-2020 18:44
From: Benjamin
Subject: Product labelling

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per 'serve' (or as well as 'serve' data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it's much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 'serves' in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I'm cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob

Agree. Sometimes it is just too hard and I guess!

------------------------------
Donna
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 13-07-2020 18:44
From: Benjamin
Subject: Product labelling

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per 'serve' (or as well as 'serve' data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it's much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 'serves' in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I'm cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob

Hello Kate

I know it's annoying isn't it. Don't get me started on serving size, why Woolworths thinks a 250g portion of salmon is a normal sized serving, I don't know, it's huge!
Anyhoo, I always look at the amount per 100g on the packet and kinda go from there as the packet will always have the weight listed on it somewhere. Not easy and can require a calculator but helps get you round the initial difficulty.

------------------------------
Sarah
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 13-07-2020 18:44
From: Benjamin
Subject: Product labelling

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per 'serve' (or as well as 'serve' data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it's much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 'serves' in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I'm cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob

I agree mostly use the per 100g figure as it gives you the percentage so easier to work out, except for individual items like crackers where it gives how many in their serving size. The ones I find annoying are tins of kidney beans is it drained weight or total .....  As new to this game I started out keeping a record of routine recipes/ food so don't have to work it out each time and as I've always liked cooking tend not to buy  prepared foods so have  developed a rough idea of the content in my staples. Though to begin with found it annoying though that they gave the cooked rice content rather than dry weight on some packs as I'm weighing it before I cook it not after!

------------------------------
Judith
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 15-07-2020 06:02
From: Sarah
Subject: Product labelling

Hello Kate

I know it's annoying isn't it. Don't get me started on serving size, why Woolworths thinks a 250g portion of salmon is a normal sized serving, I don't know, it's huge!
Anyhoo, I always look at the amount per 100g on the packet and kinda go from there as the packet will always have the weight listed on it somewhere. Not easy and can require a calculator but helps get you round the initial difficulty.

------------------------------
Sarah

Original Message:
Sent: 13-07-2020 18:44
From: Benjamin
Subject: Product labelling

I would like the association to lobby for product labelling to include the nutritional values for the whole packet rather than per 'serve' (or as well as 'serve' data). The serve concept is an artificial figure dreamt up by the manufacturer. The most helpful thing is the packet amount - if I eat half a big bag of chips it's much easier to work out half the packet value than to work out say, 5 'serves' in packet, therefore 2.5 serves eaten therefore 2.5 x serving size numbers. Same with canned stuff - if I'm cooking with 2 cans of chopped tomatoes, 1 can sweetcorn, 1 can black beans, 1 can kidney beans And 1 jar of taco sauce, it would be much easier to add up the total can carbs and divide by the number of people who i serve the meal to.
Anyone agree?

Hope this makes sense
Thanks

Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob



Kate Corcoran
+ 61 407 996 069 mob