Public needs less deceptive packaged-food labels

Detroit Free Press: Fast food is rarely hailed for its nutritional value. But its nutritional information, anyway, is more straightforward than what's available from most of the food industry. It's time for food-packagers to be honest -- and for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to force the issue, closing loopholes before it makes restaurants join the labeling game.
The info-boxes required by the 1990 Nutrition Labeling and Education Act were intended to tell people what they are eating. But they haven't proved as meaningful as they should be. Only recently -- and under pressure -- did the FDA require the disclosure of trans fats, the most-artery clogging kind of fat.
Super-sized problem
A bigger problem, no pun intended, is serving sizes. Jumboed-up food packages are still marketed as single servings. Only the most careful package readers would notice that the labels don't describe the whole bag, box or bottle; they measure only what the FDA and/or packager deems a single serving.
A quick glance might suggest that the bag of chips in your hand has 150 calories and 10 grams of fat -- not so terrible if offset by careful eating the rest of the day. But the bag may actually hold 21/2 servings.
At least McDonald's tells you how much that whole Big Mac will cost in fat and calories -- not what you get for eating just half of it.
While considering whether to make restaurants provide nutritional information -- they should -- the FDA also ought to beef up the labeling requirements for packaged food. Even seemingly healthy choices can have hidden fats that should be disclosed -- for the full product.
In the meantime, whether you're staying home or eating out, enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner. But keep an eye on your portion sizes.