The Serving Size Illusion
In the crowded aisles of a supermarket, the modern Indian consumer is faced with a dizzying array of choices. We are more health-conscious than ever, scanning labels for calories, sugar, and fat. Yet, a crucial piece of the puzzle is often overlooked
or, worse, deliberately confusing: the serving size. Manufacturers often list nutritional information for a serving size that is unrealistically small. A small bag of namkeen might claim to contain two servings, or a chocolate bar just half of its contents as a single serving. Since most people consume the entire package in one sitting, they inadvertently consume double or triple the calories, salt, and sugar they thought they were. This isn't just a failure of personal willpower; it's a systemic issue in food labelling that creates a health halo around products that may not deserve it. The practice allows a product high in fat or sugar to appear healthier on a per-serving basis, misleading consumers who are trying to make informed decisions.
Who Decides What a Serving Is?
In India, the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) defines a serving size as the amount of food customarily consumed per eating occasion or as defined on the label. However, the critical issue is the lack of standardisation across different food categories. This leaves the door open for manufacturers to define their own serving sizes, often strategically, to make their nutritional panels look more favourable. Health advocates have long argued that serving sizes should be based on the quantity of food people realistically consume, not an arbitrary, small amount. For instance, the serving size for a carbonated drink should be a full 300ml bottle or can, not 100ml, because that is how it is typically consumed. Without these clear, mandated standards, comparing two similar products becomes an exercise in frustration and complex maths, which most shoppers don't have the time for.
The Public Health Cost of Confusion
This confusion has serious public health consequences. India is facing a dual burden of malnutrition, with undernutrition coexisting with a sharp rise in obesity and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) like diabetes and heart disease. Unhealthy diets, driven by the increased availability and consumption of ultra-processed foods high in fat, salt, and sugar (HFSS), are a major contributor to this crisis. According to the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), unhealthy diets are responsible for a significant portion of India's total disease burden. When consumers cannot accurately gauge their intake of these critical nutrients due to misleading serving sizes, it directly undermines efforts to promote healthier eating habits and combat the growing NCD epidemic. It's a critical gap in a food system where sales of ultra-processed foods are growing at an explosive rate.
A Clear Path Forward: Standardisation and FOPL
The solution lies in a two-pronged approach. First, the FSSAI must establish and enforce standardised, realistic serving sizes for all categories of packaged foods. This would create a level playing field and allow for genuine like-for-like comparisons. The second, and more widely discussed, solution is the implementation of effective Front-of-Pack Labelling (FOPL). For years, consumer groups and health experts have been pushing for simple, interpretive labels—such as warning symbols for products high in salt, sugar, or fat—on the front of packages. Recently, a Parliamentary Standing Committee urged the FSSAI to expedite the rollout of its FOPNL regulations, which have been pending since 2022 despite extensive consultations. An effective FOPL system, when combined with clear information per 100g/100ml and a standardised serving size, would empower consumers to see, at a glance, the true nutritional profile of a product without needing to decode a complex chart on the back.
