Skip to main content
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
letter
. 2014 Dec;104(12):e9. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302295

Cohen and Story Respond

Deborah A Cohen 1,, Mary Story 1
PMCID: PMC4232147  PMID: 25320888

The scientific literature has clear evidence in laboratory and natural settings that people consume less when they are served less and more when served more.1 Currently, most restaurants serve customers portion sizes that are in excess of what people can burn. Standardizing portion sizes would prevent restaurants from automatically serving people too much, but still leaves it up to individuals to choose to order more (or less) than one portion. People cannot judge portions merely by looking,2 so a standardized portion would make it transparent exactly how much they are getting.

The point of a standardized portion is not to teach people about food quality, but to ensure that consumers are served appropriate quantities of whatever they order. Of course different foods have different calorie amounts, and it would be ideal to standardize based on calories, but this is currently too difficult. It’s unlikely that anyone would equate a cup of leafy greens with a cup of spaghetti. With standardized portions, if someone wanted to order spaghetti, he could automatically get just one cup of spaghetti, and not two cups as a single serving. Standardized portions wouldn’t prevent consumers from ordering two cups of spaghetti or two cups of greens, but would ensure they were served at least one cup when either is ordered. Standardized portions would protect consumers from inadvertently consuming more (or less) than they want.

Standardizing sizes of red meats, which contribute disproportionately to global warming, would ensure that people recognize that three ounces is the recommended serving size. Although many people may choose to order more, others would be happy with three ounces and this would automatically cut down on the waste. Restaurants typically buy foods in bulk, so increases in packaging costs are unlikely with standardized portions.

Given the current US diet, we disagree that to support human and environmental health we can ignore the quantity of the food consumed and only focus on quality. Consumption of too large quantities of refined and processed foods and meats and insufficient quantities of fruits, vegetables and whole grains are underlying causes of chronic diseases and obesity.3 Standardizing portions may not fully eliminate chronic diseases, but will be a giant step toward that end. Standardizing portions is intended to help us follow the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and make it easier to get the recommended amount—neither more nor less–when we dine out.

References

  • 1.Steenhuis IH, Vermeer WM. Portion size: review and framework for interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:58. doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-6-58. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Blake AJ, Guthrie HA, Smiciklas-Wright H. Accuracy of food portion estimation by overweight and normal-weight subjects. J Am Diet Assoc. 1989;89:962–964. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services; 2005, Stock Number 001-000-04719-1.

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES