Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Information:

  • Access
  • Cited by 39

Actions:

      • Send article to Kindle

        To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

        Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

        Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

        Serving size guidance for consumers: is it effective?*
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Dropbox

        To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

        Serving size guidance for consumers: is it effective?*
        Available formats
        ×

        Send article to Google Drive

        To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

        Serving size guidance for consumers: is it effective?*
        Available formats
        ×
Export citation

Abstract

Larger portion sizes (PS) may be inciting over-eating and contributing to obesity rates. Currently, there is a paucity of data on the effectiveness of serving size (SS) guidance. The aims of the present review are to evaluate SS guidance; the understanding, usability and acceptability of such guidance, its impact on consumers and potential barriers to its uptake. A sample of worldwide SS guidance schemes (n 87) were identified using targeted and untargeted searches, overall these were found to communicate various inconsistent and often conflicting messages about PS selection. The available data suggest that consumers have difficulty in understanding terms such as ‘portion size’ and ‘serving size’, as these tend to be used interchangeably. In addition, discrepancies between recommended SS and those present on food labels add to the confusion. Consumers generally understand and visualise SS best when expressed in terms of household measures rather than actual weights. Only a limited number of studies have examined the direct impact of SS guidance on consumer behaviour with equivocal results. Although consumers recognise that guidance on selecting SS would be helpful, they are often unwilling to act on such guidance. The challenge of achieving consumer adherence to SS guidance is formidable due to several barriers including chronic exposure to larger PS, distorted consumption norms and perceptions, the habit of ‘cleaning one's plate’ and language barriers for ethnic minorities. In conclusion, the impact of SS guidance on consumers merits further investigation to ensure that future guidance resonates with consumers by being more understandable, usable and acceptable.

Footnotes

*

The authors dedicate this article to the memory of their colleague Professor Julie Wallace (7 April 1971–7 February 2012).

Abbreviations:
GOV

government

HCP

health care professional

PS

portion size

SS

serving size

In recent years, the impact of larger portion sizes (PS) on energy intake and obesity has been the focus of extensive research. This is not surprising given that approximately two-thirds of adults in the UK and Ireland are currently either overweight or obese( 1 3 ). The latest predictions estimate that if present trends continue there will be an additional eleven million obese people in the UK by 2030 compared with 2010( 4 ). The impact of food PS has been well documented in the US( 5 , 6 ) where PS have increased in parallel with obesity( 7 ) since the late 1970s( 8 ). The prevalence of larger PS is evident both within and outside of the home( 9 ), particularly for foods of high-energy density( 10 ), and in both adults( 11 14 ) and adolescents( 15 ), especially in those with a higher BMI( 16 19 ). Limited data from Europe demonstrate broadly similar trends to the US( 20 ); although, in the US, PS of fast food in particular are larger than those in Europe( 21 ). In the UK, while the PS of some foods such as ready meals and fast food( 22 , 23 ) have increased, the PS of other foods have remained constant, albeit, there is a wider range of PS available( 24 ). In the present economic climate, larger PS may incite over-eating because they are often regarded as good value for money( 25 , 26 ), but this has also contributed to a distorted perception of appropriate PS.

A number of short-term studies have shown that serving larger PS of snacks( 27 , 28 ), sugar-sweetened drinks( 29 ) and individual meals( 19 , 30 33 ) led to an increased energy intake. For example, participants consumed more popcorn when presented with a large serving compared with a medium serving, even though they reported that it tasted stale( 34 ). Of concern, participants failed to compensate for the increased intake at subsequent meals( 14 , 35 ). The effect of larger PS has also been reflected in longer-term studies of varying length, from 2 d to 1 month( 11 , 14 , 35 37 ). In one study, males and females gained an average of 0·9 (sd 1·1) kg and 0·6 (sd 0·6) kg, respectively, in response to modest increases in PS over 4 d( 37 ). On the other hand, serving smaller PS( 38 40 ), single serve packets( 41 ) or smaller packaged foods( 42 , 43 ) have been associated with a reduced energy intake. Collectively, this evidence demonstrates that advising people solely about food selection is not enough; the challenge is to also help consumers appreciate the significance of the quantity of the food they consume.

In the UK, there is an absence of national serving size (SS) guidance which has led to public confusion( 44 ). The UK food guide, ‘The Eatwell Plate’( 45 ), illustrates the recommended proportions of each food group. For example, it advises the consumption of at least two servings of fish weekly( 45 ), but does not attempt to quantify the SS of the fish. In contrast, other national guides provide more comprehensive guidance about SS, e.g. the Canadian Food Guide( 46 ) gives specific examples of SS from each food group, gives recommendations on the number of daily servings, accounts for individual needs and includes composite dishes. In the UK, the lack of national quantitative recommendations has inevitably resulted in a plethora of schemes from various groups including non-government (GOV) organisations, health care professionals (HCP) and industry, communicating inconsistent guidance on SS, which is often conflicting and misleading. It is imperative that universally agreed definitions of both PS and SS are established and communicated effectively to the consumer. Furthermore, SS of particular foods can vary according to GOV recommendations or market place sizes( 47 , 48 ) or consumer perceptions of a SS( 49 51 ). Not surprisingly, consumers are confused by the inconsistent guidance that may limit their ability to actually implement such advice( 48 ). Nonetheless, there is a paucity of comprehensive data on consumer understanding of SS guidance( 52 ). Therefore, the objectives of the present research were firstly to evaluate SS guidance schemes and secondly to review the published literature on the effectiveness of SS guidance, i.e. consumer understanding, usability and acceptability of SS guidance, its impact on consumer behaviour and potential barriers to its uptake.

For the purposes of this review, definitions of PS and SS were based on those recently cited in the UK( 52 ), i.e. PS is the amount of food intended to be consumed by an individual in a single eating occasion and SS is the quantity recommended to be consumed in a single eating occasion.

Methods

Identifying serving size guidance schemes

Targeted and untargeted internet searches were conducted for national and international GOV, non-GOV organisations, HCP and food industry recommendations on SS. Details of each scheme were collated under the following headings: scheme developer and/or owner; date developed; country; rationale; basis of information; present status (e.g. being used, under review and in draft); applicable foods/exemptions; target audience; main information; graphical format; context; ease of use and clarity; consideration of individual needs; terminology; and the number of daily/weekly SS. In some instances, it was not possible to collect complete data under each heading for all schemes, e.g. some schemes were not available in English, albeit, their graphical format was still recorded.

Ease of use and clarity were rated using a scoring system based on factors cited as being important to consumers( 48 ). Maximum scores that could be allocated for each attribute are shown in brackets: visual graphical format/design (1); use of descriptors, e.g. tools or household measures (1); inclusion of all food groups (0·5) and composite foods (0·5); guidance on frequency of consumption (0·5) and individual needs (0·5) and practicality and conciseness (1). A total score out of five was calculated, and schemes were classified as poor (score 0–1·5), average (score 2–3·5) and excellent (score 4–5) in terms of ease of use and clarity. In addition, a sub-sample of schemes was scored independently by two researchers to within 0·5 of the initial scores.

Assessing the effectiveness of serving size guidance schemes

A search for the appropriate literature was conducted using the online electronic database ‘Web of Knowledge: Web of Science with Conference Proceedings’ together with manual searches of reference lists. The following broad search terms (food PS) or (food serv* size) were employed for papers published between 1970 and February 2012. This resulted in a total of 2333 papers, which were refined by relevant subject areas resulting in 949 papers prior to exclusion. Initially, papers were included/excluded based on the relevance of the information in their abstracts; where necessary the full text was consulted. The majority of studies were excluded because their primary focus was either to validate dietary assessment methods such as FFQ or evaluate adherence to dietary guidelines( 53 ). Only studies that were available in English and investigating the general adult population (i.e. ≥18 years) were included. Studies specifically dealing with children were excluded as different parameters apply, e.g. nutrient requirements. This resulted in a final total of 108 papers for inclusion in the present review. The papers identified were evaluated with respect to: consumer understanding, impact, acceptability, usability and potential barriers. The papers were interpreted using NVivo qualitative data analysis software version 9 (QSR International Pty Ltd)( 54 ).

Identifying serving size guidance schemes

A total sample of eighty-seven national and international GOV (n 49), non-GOV organisations (n 14), industry (n 12) and HCP (n 12) SS guidance schemes were identified. The information in the schemes was communicated with the aid of various graphical formats. Table 1 shows that GOV schemes most consistently favoured the pyramid format; however, the plate and other formats, such as the rainbow, flag, house and spinning top were also used. The Food Pyramid used in Ireland( 55 ) was adapted from the US ‘My Pyramid’( 56 ), the latter being recently replaced with ‘My Plate’( 57 ): a meal-based approach similar to the UK ‘Eatwell Plate’( 45 ) but with additional SS information. The majority of non-GOV organisations, HCP and industry schemes adopted other formats to demonstrate appropriate SS, including food photographs, information sheets and visual aids such as the palm of the hand. A lack of consistent terminology was apparent (Table 1) with some schemes utilising the term ‘portion size’ or ‘serving size’, whereas others used a combination of terms without distinguishing between them, e.g. PS and SS, or other terms such as ‘units’ or ‘amounts’. The US has moved away from SS and PS and now uses ‘amounts’ in the most recent recommendations( 58 ). In relation to the ratings for ease of use and clarity, the majority of guidance schemes were rated either ‘average’ (score 2–3·5 out of 5) or ‘poor’. Only ten (13%) schemes were rated ‘excellent’ for their quantitative advice. A considerable number of schemes from all sources did not provide any advice on the number of servings that should be consumed daily or weekly, whereas others provided only vague and/or inconsistent information, e.g. advising on the frequency of some food groups but not others. Individual needs such as sex and age were not considered by many of the schemes although some made a vague attempt, e.g. by stating that pregnant or lactating women need more servings.

Table 1. Overview of national and international serving size (SS) guidance schemes

GOV, government; NGO, non-GOV organisation; HCP, health care professional.

* It was not possible to collect complete data for all eighty-seven schemes, therefore, the total number of schemes from each source varies depending on the aspect of the guidance being considered.

GOV schemes were generally based on either typical SS for appropriate nutrient intake or PS from food consumption survey data. However, a number of schemes did not specify the basis of their SS. One food industry scheme based SS on a combination of GOV recommendations, food consumption survey data, the Food Standard Agency Food PS book( 59 ) and manufacturers labelling information. Table 2 provides some examples of the variations which are evident in the industry recommended SS. For example, an ‘average’ SS of a potato varied from a small baked potato to a large potato. Moreover, it is clear that none of the schemes shown in Table 2 used the medium SS of cereal (30 g) currently recommended by the Food Standard Agency( 59 ). GOV PS guidance schemes were mainly developed to translate nutrient-based recommendations into food-based dietary guidance. However, while most schemes did not specify their underlying rationale, a number of HCP schemes were specifically developed to reduce disease risk, e.g. World Cancer Research Fund( 60 ). Overall, schemes were generally developed to communicate a healthy balanced diet, weight management, dietary assessment or as a guide for caterers. A large proportion (n 22; 25%) of schemes did not specify their target audience. Where this was specified, GOV schemes were generally designed for adults and children >2 years, or in some instances >5 years. HCP schemes were sometimes more specific, e.g. they could be aimed at diabetics, cancer patients or overweight and obese individuals. The context in which the SS guidance should be applied was usually not stated, but generally the information was applicable to eating at home or away from home contexts. Most schemes gave SS information for the major food groups including meat, grains, dairy and fruit and vegetables. In the majority of schemes, SS of high-energy dense foods such as fats, oils and confectionery were not quantified; rather it was advised that those food groups be consumed in small amounts or ‘sparingly’. Most schemes did not provide SS guidance for composite foods such as lasagne or casseroles.

Table 2. Examples of variations in UK industry* portion size (PS) guidance

* Tesco, Marks & Spencer, Sainsburys, Waitrose and Boots Web MD.

Recommended average 30 g (medium portion).( 59 )

In summary, the wide range of formats currently employed has the potential to present conflicting and often ambiguous information to consumers about SS. It is clear that a consistent rationale for such communications needs to be set in place to allow for the provision of more comprehensive guidance in future.

Assessing the effectiveness of serving size guidance schemes

As SS guidance is highly variable, consumer understanding, acceptability and use are pivotal to its success. The following sections outline the effectiveness of SS guidance.

Consumer understanding

Understanding can be considered in two ways: objectively; interpreting something as it was intended to be, or subjectively; believing that you understand something( 61 ). Although, 78% of Australian consumers said they understood what constituted a SS of vegetables (subjective understanding), only 14% identified that this was equivalent to half a cup (objective understanding)( 62 ). Consumers generally have a poor understanding of SS guidance( 50 , 63 ). There are three main areas where this is particularly evident: terminology; units of measurement; and consumer perceptions v. recommendations.

Terminology

A major obstacle in developing dietary guidelines has been the confusion associated with the terminology used( 64 ). Consumers have difficulty in understanding the terms PS and SS( 48 , 53 ) as these tend to be used interchangeably, even within the same scheme( 50 , 52 ). Table 3 provides an overview of various cited definitions of PS and SS. These terms are sometimes believed to have the same meaning: the amount of food eaten at a single eating occasion( 50 ) or one sitting( 48 ). In fact, in a US study, few consumers were aware that their PS could represent more than one SS( 50 ). PS can be the amount of food offered in a restaurant, or on a label or plate( 68 ). Phrases associated with the term PS have been reported as ‘daily allowance’, ‘restriction’, ‘enough for one person’ and the weight of food in grams( 73 ).

Table 3. Definitions of portion size (PS) and serving size (SS) as cited in the literature

* The definitions of PS and SS used in this review.

The majority of the definitions listed in Table 3 can be loosely translated as PS being the amount of food consumed at a single eating occasion, and SS being the amount that is recommended. However, evidence from the most recent European-wide consumer research is not in accord with these definitions( 71 ). It is imperative that there are universally agreed definitions of both PS and SS established and communicated effectively to the consumer. As mentioned earlier, this review utilises definitions of PS and SS that were recently cited in the UK( 52 ) (i.e. PS is the amount of food intended to be consumed by an individual in a single eating occasion and SS is the quantity recommended to be consumed in a single eating occasion), in order to provide a basis for comparison with future research.

Units of measurement

Various units of measurement are used in SS guidance to convey what constitutes an appropriate SS including weight (e.g. grams or ounces), household measures (e.g. cup), units (e.g. one piece of fruit), a fraction or slice (e.g. slice of bread) or proportions of a plate. Statements such as ‘a balanced diet’( 53 ), advising to consume ‘more’ of something( 74 ) or terms such as small/medium/large may be too ambiguous and subjective( 75 ). Consumers interpreted SS to be the amount suitable to fulfil daily nutrient requirements rather than that appropriate to have a satiating effect. The authors suggested communicating SS in specific gram weights( 70 ). However, consumers reportedly find it difficult to adapt from the imperial system to the metric system, particularly those over 45 years, while others show no knowledge of either approach( 73 ). Furthermore, weights can be difficult to understand, especially for cereals, unless the SS can be related to a common object or household measure( 73 ). Indeed, consumers generally understand amounts expressed in terms of household measures and units better than specific weights, e.g. the cup as a measure for fruit and vegetables( 50 , 53 , 62 ). In addition, household measures used in conjunction with specific food examples, i.e. one cup of oatmeal (one serving of grains), reportedly helps to ‘visualise’ amounts( 50 ). However, care must be taken to ensure consumers fully understand the differences between household measures. For example, a group of UK consumers speculated that a tablespoon was: ‘three dessert spoons’, ‘probably one ounce’, or ‘is it a dessert spoon or a soup spoon?’( 73 ).

Given that few consumers actually weigh their food( 73 ), SS guidance using household measures with food examples may be most appropriate, with the caveat that consumers need to understand the type of the household measure in question.

Consumer perceptions v. recommendations

Consumer understanding of appropriate SS can show little correspondence with actual recommendations( 16 , 48 , 69 , 76 79 ). With respect to specific foods, consumers estimated SS of pasta, breakfast cereals, meat and rice to be larger than recommended( 49 , 50 , 69 , 73 ), while SS of banana were estimated with ease( 77 ). In contrast, salad items( 69 ) and mashed potato( 49 ) were estimated to be smaller than the recommended SS. A UK study found that none of the GOV or HCP SS guides under consideration correlated with a group of normal and overweight men's perceptions( 51 ). However, appropriate PS can vary considerably depending on age and sex( 80 ), therefore it is imperative that recommended SS consider the variable needs of the whole population.

Recommended SS often bears little resemblance to consumers’ habitual eating patterns. For instance, in Ireland, one slice of bread equates to one serving; however, people are most likely to consume two slices in a sandwich or two slices of toast at one eating occasion. Consequently, efforts are being made to improve advice so that it resonates better with consumers( 81 ), in a manner similar to Australian guidelines( 82 ). In the US and the UK, self-reported PS of ethnic minority groups were often multiple times the recommended SS( 83 , 84 ). These larger habitual PS can easily promote a distorted view of recommendations, causing over-estimated SS of various foods( 79 ). Industry are also urged to use realistic SS( 85 ) since manipulation of SS to make the nutritional content appear more favourable may be misleading for many consumers( 86 ).

Foods that have been identified as being the most difficult for consumers to select appropriate PS include: starchy foods (rice, pasta, breakfast cereals and potatoes), meat, fats, cheese, alcohol and foods sold loose or in multi-serve packs( 63 ). Composite dishes also add to the confusion. Although consumers understood that composite dishes such as pizza could account for servings from more than one food group, they were unsure why a range of servings were recommended( 50 ). While the ‘5-a-day’ campaign for fruit and vegetables is widely promoted, consumers found it difficult to understand what constitutes a SS of fruit or vegetables( 62 , 73 , 87 ). When more guidance was available to increase consumer awareness of fruit and vegetable SS their consumption of this food group increased considerably( 88 ).

Overall, it is apparent that recommendations may need to be reconsidered to be more reflective of consumers’ perceptions of SS and their habitual PS, in order to be more meaningful. Particular consideration and perhaps additional education may be needed for some foods.

Impact

The impact of SS aids and training has mainly been evaluated in the context of dietary assessment. Relatively few studies have assessed their direct impact on consumer SS estimation and selection( 48 ) (n 17) and these are summarised in Table 4. Although the majority of these studies have reported a reduced error in SS estimation or a more favourable nutrient intake (positive impact), these effects were only measured in the short term and usually in the laboratory setting( 88 97 ). A follow-up study conducted 3 months after initial training about SS showed that the immediate positive impact had not been maintained( 96 ). Some studies showed that SS guidance had no impact( 70 , 98 101 ) and others resulted in under- or overestimation of SS (negative impact)( 102 , 103 ). These equivocal results cannot be explained by the different methods of communicating SS information, e.g. computer based and food labelling v. SS aids, because each of these methods could have either positive, negative or no impact depending on the study. Group training using food models and other aids appears to be the most consistently effective method, albeit in the short term only. The majority of these studies were carried out in the US. Moreover, there have been no long-term or intervention studies on the impact of SS guidance on weight management( 68 ).

Table 4. Impact of serving size guidance

SS, serving size; min, minutes; F, female; M, male; F&V, fruit and vegetables.

* Reduced the error in SS estimation, i.e. closer to recommended or reference size, or resulted in a more favourable nutrient intake.

Under or over-estimation of SS.

No change in SS estimation.

Awareness of SS guidance does not necessarily result in its implementation( 104 ). For instance, the current 5-a-day campaign for fruit and vegetables is well known by the public, but there is little evidence of its effectiveness( 74 ). A UK study demonstrated that guidance on SS estimation of fruit and vegetables using household measures and food photographs as aids had no effect on PS selection( 98 ). There is some evidence to suggest that portion control tools may be effective for aiding weight-loss in the clinical setting( 105 107 ), but further work is needed to evaluate the impact of SS guidance in the general population( 48 ).

In the US, dietary guidelines are revised every 5 years, but there is no mandate to evaluate their impact( 108 ), nor is this compulsory in the UK or Ireland. More support is clearly needed to aid the implementation and evaluation of guidance( 109 ). Even when information on SS is available, consumers still tend to inaccurately assess their PS( 68 ). A positive impact is more likely if consumers are aware that the change is important for their health( 110 ).

Acceptability

In general, consumers tend to be interested and recognise that SS guidance may be helpful, but do not always consider it relevant to them personally( 26 , 111 ), and the idea that ‘one size does not fit all’ has been evident since the 1980s( 112 ).

It would appear that consumers will only consult SS guidance when they feel intervention is required, e.g. when aiming for weight loss( 53 , 73 , 110 , 111 ). Furthermore, SS guidance is reportedly more accepted by consumers for main meals and foods such as rice and pasta, but is generally not considered for snack foods, drinks or staples like bread and milk( 73 ). Acceptability also appears to be dependent on sex, socio-economic status, level of interest in the diet and the perceived credibility of the source( 25 , 26 , 48 , 66 , 73 , 111 , 113 ).

There is evidence that consumers were not inclined to implement SS guidance even when they were aware of it( 66 ). Indeed, only half of UK consumers reported that they would use serving demarcations on food labels( 73 ). Negative connotations were associated with measuring SS as it was considered time consuming, impeded the enjoyment of meal time, and could be frowned upon by others( 114 ). Consumers are generally amenable to tools and household measures as guides to SS( 73 ) and the provision of computer-based SS information is generally well accepted by younger groups, e.g. students( 88 , 115 , 116 ). Although proportional pricing strategies were considered to be unattractive for large households( 26 ), consumers were reportedly most receptive to pricing strategies, SS labelling and the provision of a larger range of SS( 26 , 99 ). However, despite being viewed as acceptable, pricing strategies had no effect on PS selection( 117 ).

The available data suggest that SS guidance should be simple, non-prescriptive, consistent, practical and flexible in order to be accepted by consumers( 73 , 111 ). Ultimately, the uptake of any recommendation about SS is unlikely unless they are both realistic and achievable( 118 ).

Usability

As previously discussed, consumers have difficulty comprehending incoherent and contradictory advice( 50 ) available from various sources, each with different perspectives( 119 ). For example in the US, the inconsistencies between SS from the Pyramid( 120 ) (half a cup of cooked pasta) and the Nutrition Facts label on food packaging (1 cup cooked pasta)( 121 ), add to consumer confusion( 50 ). Labelling SS for products from the grains group can vary considerably( 121 ). US market-place PS were found to be larger than those recommended( 8 , 47 ), e.g. cookies were seven times bigger, while cooked pasta was almost five times the recommended SS( 8 ). Moreover, reference SS for food labels were derived from food consumption surveys conducted between 1977–78 and 1987–88( 122 ). In Australia, SS for snacks varied greatly (18–100 g), while the SS for drinks frequently did not correspond to the size of the container( 123 ). Furthermore, SS of some own brand foods such as ready meals and pizza were significantly smaller than their market brand equivalents( 124 ). In Europe, there are no regulations or clarification of SS on labels( 48 ). A comparison of the recommended UK medium PS( 59 ) with food label SS demonstrated several inconsistencies, e.g. the average SS for a medium slice of steak pie is 120 g but this ranges between 138 and 300 g on food labels( 48 ) making it difficult to compare products. On the other hand, UK consumers thought SS on front-of-pack labels helped them make quick comparisons between the nutritional composition of foods( 86 ).

Recommended SS of foods within the same food group should also be nutritionally comparable to enable consumers to exchange foods. For instance, a SS of rice should be comparable in terms of energy content with an SS of pasta. In the present Irish dietary guidelines, there is a wide range in energy content between SS of bread, cereals and potato ranging from 314 to 1046 kJ (75–250 kcal), although these were deemed to be equivalent( 49 ). In theory, this limits the consumer's ability to effectively use SS in the intended way, although efforts have been made to rectify this issue( 125 ).

Foods labelled as containing multiple servings can be problematic. An entire packet of a food product is often eaten oblivious to the fact that it contained several servings( 68 ) and unless the whole pack contained just a single SS consumers were confused about how to interpret the nutrition information( 73 ). Details of the number of servings in packaged amorphous foods, demarcations of individual SS on packets of foods such as rice and butter, and individually packaged SS can be useful( 73 ). Despite this less than a quarter of consumers use food labels to aid their estimation of PS( 63 ). With regard to the elderly, some may not be able to remember SS recommendations that would limit their ability to follow them( 126 ).

Food photographs( 127 ), household measures and other practical tools can be useful in PS estimation although these have mainly been investigated with respect to their use in dietary assessment( 48 ). Photographs and food models can help the consumers to visualise their typical PS but they may not be useful for composite dishes, e.g. sauce covering meat or rice in a meal, making it difficult to interpret PS of the individual food items on the plate( 128 ).

Another issue is that SS guidance does not always consider the types and amounts of foods typically eaten by ethnic minorities( 83 , 84 ). ‘The plate model’ was considered useful, but concerns have been expressed about the large proportion of vegetables recommended because of the customary addition of fats and oils to vegetables by some ethnic groups. For example, a typical PS of vegetable soup for a British–African–Carribean group (which was more than double that of the Caucasian population in the UK) could contain up to 25 g of fat( 84 ). A Canadian study conveyed that the ‘hand jive’ method (e.g. using the palm of the hand to estimate a serving of protein) was too vague and difficult to remember for immigrants from South Asia, who found themselves thinking of SS in terms of household measures( 111 ). Consequently, such tools may need special consideration of the traditions and language of ethnic minority groups( 114 ). Further research is needed to assess the validity and relevance of SS tools and aids such as food photographs and household measures for ethnic minority groups( 129 ).

Potential barriers

The potential barriers to the uptake of SS guidance have been widely documented in the literature. There are various environmental factors that can act as potential barriers to the implementation of SS guidance both within and outside of the home, such as package size( 63 , 130 ), eating food in units( 131 ), poor nutrition knowledge( 63 ), value for money( 26 , 73 , 101 , 118 ), irregular eating patterns( 63 ), time constraints( 48 , 50 , 53 , 132 ), taste( 132 ), social interactions/distractions( 133 , 134 ), food cue exposure( 135 ) (especially in unrestrained eaters)( 136 ), language barriers( 114 ) and literacy and numeracy skills( 137 , 138 ). Larger plates have been linked to larger PS( 133 ), although manipulation of plate size does not affect food or energy intake( 139 , 140 ). One of the main reasons for failing to adhere to such guidance is consumer habit and experience( 48 , 66 , 73 , 141 ). The tradition of ‘cleaning one's plate’( 66 , 73 , 142 ) occurs at over 91% of meals( 143 ) with just over half of consumers admitting to this when eating out( 73 ). Consumers have been found to ignore SS guidance when eating outside of the home( 66 ), albeit they considered the home to be the most challenging setting in which to control their PS( 63 ).

The adoption of SS guidance is difficult in a culture where larger PS have become ‘the norm’( 26 , 48 , 101 ) and recommended SS are perceived as being too small( 26 ). Consumers are generally oblivious to the fact that these consumption norms coupled with the underestimation of energy content in large PS can often result in consumption beyond their needs( 144 ). Another obstacle to adopting SS guidance is the increasing concern about avoiding food wastage( 26 , 63 , 66 , 101 ). Lack of consideration for PS has also been attributed to hunger and satiety cues( 26 , 73 , 101 , 114 , 132 , 143 , 145 151 ). Approximately a fifth of consumers eat what is on their plate until they feel full( 73 ). Hunger has been typically shown to cause an increase in PS( 73 , 152 ). However, PS estimates of a range of foods and beverages were reported to be significantly smaller under hungry compared with full conditions( 51 ). PS has also been shown to correlate with food liking and familiarity, and larger PS were estimated for foods expected to be less satiating( 77 ).

Consumers are sceptical of labelled SS as they feel the recommended SS may be manipulated by manufacturers to mislead them( 86 ). The ‘health-halo’ effect associated with low-fat foods may also lead consumers to disregard SS information( 10 , 153 ). The so-called healthier options may not be as satisfying and may lead to an increased consumption( 73 ). In addition, the food industry is reluctant to reduce SS as this would increase packaging costs and consumers could perceive it as a strategy to increase profits( 99 ). Marketing techniques such as product naming, reduced cost, labelling and presentation can make the larger portions more appealing( 99 ).

Health professionals have also identified barriers to providing SS advice, i.e. determining the level of details required in SS guidance communications, conflicting information in the media (especially for carbohydrates), and the absence of national quantitative guidance( 48 ).

Summary of overall findings

There are many aspects of SS guidance which must be evaluated in order to effectively promote consumer understanding, acceptability and usability, and to subsequently enhance the impact of such communications. In particular, efforts should be made to rectify the potential barriers to the uptake of SS guidance. In addition, the paucity of SS information on composite dishes which constitute the majority of eating occasions should be addressed. Further research on the long-term impact of SS guidance is necessary( 48 ) to ensure the efficacy and improvement of such communications and tools. The focus to date has been on translating the science, but little work has been done to evaluate the effectiveness of the guidance on consumers( 109 ). This is a gap that must be addressed in order to provide clear, consistent guidance for consumers about SS, which is both meaningful and easily understood. Policy-makers need to be much more aware than hitherto of how well their guidance is being communicated, i.e. how consumers are interpreting or potentially misinterpreting this information, in order to improve their advice.

Conclusion

The present review has shown that the SS guidance currently in place in many countries has been, by and large, ineffective, mainly caused by the large degree of inconsistencies and the resulting consumer confusion. Priority needs to be given to this issue due to the fact that expanding food PS is a major environmental factor implicated in the increasing prevalence of obesity among children and adults.

Acknowledgements

This material is based on works supported by safefood, the Food Safety Promotion Board, under grant no. 07-2010. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The authors would like to acknowledge Dr Ruth Price for helping to score the SS guidance schemes. G.P.F. carried out the searches and wrote the review; L.K.P. and M.A.K. independently scored the SS guidance for ease of use and clarity; M.B.E.L. drafted the outline of the review; L.K.P., J.M.W.W., M.A.K., T.A.McC. and M.B.E.L. provided guidance and commented on drafts of the review.

References

1. House of Commons Health Committee (2001) Tackling Obesity in England. London: The Stationery Office.
2. The NHS Information Centre (2010) Health Survey for England – 2009: Health and Lifestyles. Leeds, UK: The Health and Social Care Information Centre.
3. Irish Universities Nutrition Alliance (2011) National Adult Nutritional Survey – Summary Report on Food and Nutrient Intakes, Physical Measurements, Physical Activity Patterns and Food Choice Motives. Ireland: IUNA.
4. Wang, CY, McPherson, K, Marsh, T et al. (2011) Health and economic burden of the projected obesity trends in the USA and the UK. Lancet 378, 815825.
5. Nielsen, SJ & Popkin, BM (2003) Patterns and trends in food portion sizes, 1977–1998. JAMA 289, 450453.
6. Smiciklas-Wright, H, Mitchell, DC, Mickle, SJ et al. (2003) Foods commonly eaten in the United States, 1989–1991 and 1994–1996: are portion sizes changing? J Am Diet Assoc 103, 4147.
7. Ello-Martin, JA, Ledikwe, JH & Rolls, BJ (2005) The influence of food portion size and energy density on energy intake: implications for weight management. Am J Clin Nutr 82, 236S241S.
8. Young, LR & Nestle, M (2002) The contribution of expanding portion sizes to the US obesity epidemic. Am J Public Health 92, 246249.
9. Condrasky, M, Ledikwe, JH, Flood, JE et al. (2007) Chefs’ opinions of restaurant portion sizes. Obesity 15, 20862094.
10. Matthiessen, J, Fagt, S, Biltoft-Jensen, A et al. (2003) Size makes a difference. Public Health Nutr 6, 6572.
11. Rolls, B, Roe, L & Meengs, J (2006) Larger portion sizes lead to a sustained increase in energy intake over 2 days. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 543549.
12. Schusdziarra, V, Hausmann, M, Wittke, C et al. (2010) Contribution of energy density and food quantity to short-term fluctuations of energy intake in normal weight and obese subjects. Eur J Nutr 49, 3743.
13. Japur, CC & Diez-Garcia, RW (2010) Food energy content influences food portion size estimation by nutrition students. J Hum Nutr Diet 23, 272276.
14. Kral, T, Roe, L & Rolls, B (2004) Combined effects of energy density and portion size on energy intake in women. Am J Clin Nutr 79, 962968.
15. Piernas, C & Popkin, BM (2011) Increased portion sizes from energy-dense foods affect total energy intake at eating occasions in US children and adolescents: patterns and trends by age group and sociodemographic characteristics, 1977–2006. Am J Clin Nutr 94, 13241332.
16. Burger, KS, Kern, M & Coleman, KJ (2007) Characteristics of self-selected portion size in young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 611618.
17. Berg, C, Lappas, G, Wolk, A et al. (2009) Eating patterns and portion size associated with obesity in a Swedish population. Appetite 52, 2126.
18. Kelly, MT, Rennie, KL, Wallace, JMW et al. (2009) Associations between the portion sizes of food groups consumed and measures of adiposity in the British National Diet and Nutrition Survey. Br J Nutr 101, 14131420.
19. Burger, KS, Fisher, JO & Johnson, SL (2011) Mechanisms behind the portion size effect: visibility and bite size. Obesity 19, 546551.
20. Steenhuis, IHM, Leeuwis, FH & Vermeer, WM (2010) Small, medium, large or supersize: trends in food portion sizes in The Netherlands. Public Health Nutr 13, 852857.
21. Young, LR & Nestle, M (2007) Portion sizes and obesity: responses of fast-food companies. J Public Health Policy 28, 238248.
22. Wrieden, WL, Gregor, A & Barton, K (2008) Have food portion sizes in the UK increased over the past 20 years? Proc Nutr Soc 67, E211.
23. Benson, C (2009) Increasing portion size in Britain. Soc Biol Hum Aff 74, 420.
24. Church, S (2008) Trends in Portion Sizes in the UK – A Preliminary Review of Published Information. London, UK: Food Standards Agency.
25. Driskell, JA, Meckna, BR & Scales, NE (2006) Differences exist in the eating habits of university men and women at fast-food restaurants. Nutr Res 26, 524530.
26. Vermeer, WM, Steenhuis, IHM & Seidell, JC (2010) Portion size: a qualitative study of consumers’ attitudes toward point-of-purchase interventions aimed at portion size. Health Educ Res 25, 109120.
27. Rolls, BJ, Roe, LS, Kral, TVE et al. (2004) Increasing the portion size of a packaged snack increases energy intake in men and women. Appetite 42, 6369.
28. Raynor, HA & Wing, RR (2007) Package unit size and amount of food: do both influence intake? Obesity 15, 23112319.
29. Flood, JE, Roe, LS & Rolls, BJ (2006) The effect of increased beverage portion size on energy intake at a meal. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 19841990.
30. Rolls, BJ, Roe, LS, Meengs, JS et al. (2004) Increasing the portion size of a sandwich increases energy intake. J Am Diet Assoc 104, 367372.
31. Rolls, BJ, Morris, EL & Roe, LS (2002) Portion size of food affects energy intake in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Am J Clin Nutr 76, 12071213.
32. Levitsky, DA & Youn, T (2004) The more food young adults are served, the more they overeat. J Nutr 134, 25462549.
33. Diliberti, N, Bordi, PL, Conklin, MT et al. (2004) Increased portion size leads to increased energy intake in a restaurant meal. Obes Res 12, 562568.
34. Wansink, B & Kim, J (2005) Bad popcorn in big buckets: portion size can influence intake as much as taste. J Nutr Educ Behav 37, 242245.
35. Jeffery, RW, Rydell, S, Dunn, CL et al. (2007) Effects of portion size on chronic energy intake. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 4, 27.
36. Rolls, BJ, Roe, LS & Meengs, JS (2007) The effect of large portion sizes on energy intake is sustained for 11 days. Obesity 15, 15351543.
37. Kelly, MT, Wallace, JMW, Robson, PJ et al. (2009) Increased portion size leads to a sustained increase in energy intake over 4d in normal-weight and overweight men and women. Br J Nutr 102, 470477.
38. Freedman, MR & Brochado, C (2010) Reducing portion size reduces food intake and plate waste. Obesity 18, 18641866.
39. Rolls, BJ, Roe, LS & Meengs, JS (2006) Reductions in portion size and energy density of foods are additive and lead to sustained decreases in energy intake. Am J Clin Nutr 83, 1117.
40. Marchiori, D, Waroquier, L & Klein, O (2011) Smaller food item sizes of snack foods influence reduced portions and caloric intake in young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 111, 727731.
41. Raynor, HA, Van Walleghen, EL, Niemeier, H et al. (2009) Do food provisions packaged in single-servings reduce energy intake at breakfast during a brief behavioral weight-loss intervention? J Am Diet Assoc 109, 19221925.
42. Stroebele, N, Ogden, LG & Hill, JO (2009) Do calorie-controlled portion sizes of snacks reduce energy intake? Appetite 52, 793796.
43. Wansink, B, Payne, CR & Shimizu, M (2011) The 100-calorie semi-solution: sub-packaging most reduces intake among the heaviest. Obesity 19, 10981100.
44. The British Dietetic Association (2007) Dietitians Hail Return of Balanced Diet Plate. Birmingham, UK: The British Dietetic Association.
45. Food Standards Agency (2007) The Eatwell Plate. London, UK: Food Standards Agency.
46. Health Canada (2007) Eating Well with Canada's Food Guide. Canada: Health Canada.
47. Young, LR & Nestle, M (2003) Expanding portion sizes in the US marketplace: implications for nutrition counseling. J Am Diet Assoc 103, 231234.
48. Anderson, AS, Barton, K, Craigie, A et al. (2008) Exploration of Adult Food Portion Size Tools. Edinburgh, UK: NHS Health Scotland.
49. Flynn, MAT, O'Brien, CM, Faulkner, G et al. (2012) Revision of food-based dietary guidelines for Ireland, phase 1: evaluation of Ireland's food guide. Public Health Nutr 15, 518526.
50. Britten, P, Haven, J & Davis, C (2006) Consumer research for development of educational messages for the MyPyramid food guidance system. J Nutr Educ Behav 38, S108S123.
51. Brogden, N & Almiron-Roig, E (2011) Estimated portion sizes of snacks and beverages differ from reference amounts and are affected by appetite status in non-obese men. Public Health Nutr 14, 17431751.
52. Institute of Grocery Distribution (2008) Portion Size: a Review of Existing Approaches. England: Institute of Grocery Distribution.
53. Brown, KA, Timotijevic, L, Barnett, J et al. (2011) A review of consumer awareness, understanding and use of food-based dietary guidelines. Br J Nutr 106, 1526.
54. QSR International Pty Ltd (2010) NVivo qualitative data analysis software, version 9. Southport, UK: QSR International Pty Ltd.
55. Nutrition and Health Foundation (2011) Food Pyramid. http://www.nutritionandhealth.ie/Sectors/NHF/NHF.nsf/vPages/Eat_Smart∼food-pyramid?OpenDocument (accessed October 2011).
56. U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (2005) My Pyramid – Steps to a Healthier You. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
57. U.S. Department of Agriculture (2011) ChooseMyPlate.gov website. http://www.choosemyplate.gov/index.html (accessed May 2011).
58. U.S. Department of Agriculture & U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010) Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
59. Food Standards Agency (2002) Food Portion Sizes, 3rd ed. London: TSO.
60. World Cancer Research Fund (2011) Portion size: finding the balance for cancer prevention. http://www.wcrf-uk.org/PDFs/Portion-Size-finding-the-balance.pdf (accessed December 2011).
61. Grunert, KG & Wills, JM (2007) A review of European research on consumer response to nutrition information on food labels. J Public Health 15, 385399.
62. Pollard, CM, Daly, AM & Binns, CW (2008) Consumer perceptions of fruit and vegetables serving sizes. Public Health Nutr 12, 637643.
63. Institute of Grocery Distribution (2009) Portion Size Communication in Therapeutic Practice: a Survey of Dietitians and Nutritionists. England: Institute of Grocery Distribution.
64. The International Life Sciences Institute (2004) National Food Based Dietary Guidelines: Experiences, Implications and Future Directions. Hungary: ILSI.
65. Hogbin, M, Shaw, A & Anand, RS (1999) Nutrition Insights: Food Portions and Servings how do they Differ? Insight 11. Washington, DC: USDA Centre for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
66. The Dietary Guidelines Alliance (2002) A Focus Group Study to Explore Consumer Attitudes Regarding Portion Management and Dietary Fat. Bethesda, MD: Shugoll Research.
67. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (2011) Portion Distortion. http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/portion/keep.htm (accessed March 2011).
68. Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity (2006) Research to Practice Series No. 2: Portion Size. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
69. Schwartz, J & Byrd-Bredbenner, C (2006) Portion distortion: typical portion sizes selected by young adults. J Am Diet Assoc 106, 14121418.
70. Ueland, O, Cardello, AV, Merrill, EP et al. (2009) Effect of portion size information on food intake. J Am Diet Assoc 109, 124127.
71. European Food Information Council (2011) Large portions contribute to weight gain. http://www.eufic.org/page/en/show/latest-science-news/fftid/Large-portions-weight-gain/ (accessed October 2011).
72. Waitrose (2012) Portion sizes. http://www.waitrose.com/home/inspiration/health_and_nutrition/weight_loss/portion_sizes.html (accessed February 2012).
73. Institute of Grocery Distribution (2009) Portion Size: Understanding the Consumer Perspective. England: Institute of Grocery Distribution.
74. Williams, C (1995) Healthy eating: clarifying advice about fruit and vegetables. Br Med J 310, 14531455.
75. Young, LR & Nestle, M (1998) Variation in perceptions of a ‘medium’ food portion: implications for dietary guidance. J Am Diet Assoc 98, 458459.
76. Hogbin, M & Hess, M (1999) Public confusion over food portions and servings. J Am Diet Assoc 99, 12091211.
77. Brogden, N & Almiron-Roig, E (2010) Food liking, familiarity and expected satiation selectively influence portion size estimation of snacks and caloric beverages in men. Appetite 55, 551555.
78. Young, LR & Nestle, M (1995) Portion sizes in dietary assessment – issues and policy implications. Nutr Rev 53, 149158.
79. Shah, M, Adams-Huet, B, Elston, E et al. (2010) Food serving size knowledge in African American Women and the relationship with body mass index. J Nutr Educ Behav 42, 99105.
80. Rangan, AM, Schindeler, S, Hector, DJ et al. (2009) Assessment of typical food portion sizes consumed among Australian adults. Nutr Diet 66, 227233.
81. Flynn, MAT, O'Brien, CM, Ross, V et al. (2012) Revision of food-based dietary guidelines for Ireland, phase 2: recommendations for healthy eating and affordability. Public Health Nutr 15, 527537.
82. Smith, A, Kellett, E & Schmerlaib, Y (2003) The Australian Guide to Healthy Eating. Background Information for Nutrition Educators. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
83. Gans, KM, Risica, PM, Kirtania, U et al. (2009) Dietary behaviors and portion sizes of black women who enrolled in SisterTalk and variation by demographic characteristics. J Nutr Educ Behav 41, 3240.
84. Sharma, S, Cade, J, Landman, J et al. (2002) Assessing the diet of the British African-Caribbean population: frequency of consumption of foods and food portion sizes. Int J Food Sci Nutr 53, 439444.
85. Food Standards Agency (2007) Front of Pack Traffic Light Signpost Labelling – Technical Guidance Issue 2. London: Food Standards Agency.
86. British Market Research Bureau Qualitative (2010) Citizens' Forums on Food: Front-of-Pack Nutrition Labelling. London: Food Standard's Agency.
87. Ashfield-Watt, P (2006) Fruits and vegetables, 5 + a day: are we getting the message across? Asia Pac J Clin Nutr 15, 245252.
88. Ayala, G (2006) An experimental evaluation of a group-versus computer-based intervention to improve food portion size estimation skills. Health Educ Res 21, 133145.
89. Bolland, JE, Yuhas, JA & Bolland, TW (1988) Estimation of food portion sizes: effectiveness of training. J Am Diet Assoc 88, 817.
90. Yuhas, JA, Bolland, JE & Bolland, TW (1989) The impact of training, food type, gender and container size on the estimation of food portion sizes. J Am Diet Assoc 89, 14731477.
91. Weber, JL, Tinsley, AM, Houtkooper, LB et al. (1997) Multimethod training increases portion-size estimation accuracy. J Am Diet Assoc 97, 176179.
92. Brown, L & Oler, C (2000) A food display assignment and handling food models improves accuracy of college students’ estimates of food portions. J Am Diet Assoc 100, 10631065.
93. Venter, CS, MacIntyre, UE & Vorster, HH (2000) The development and testing of a food portion photograph book for use in an African population. J Hum Nutr Diet 13, 205218.
94. Byrd-Bredbenner, C & Schwartz, J (2004) The effect of practical portion size measurement aids on the accuracy of portion size estimates made by young adults. J Hum Nutr Diet 17, 351357.
95. Martin, CK, Anton, SD, York-Crowe, E et al. (2007) Empirical evaluation of the ability to learn a calorie counting system and estimate portion size and food intake. Br J Nutr 98, 439444.
96. Colapinto, CK & Malaviarachchi, D (2009) Paint your plate: effectiveness of a point-of-purchase display. Can J Diet Pract Res 70, 6671.
97. Ollberding, NJ, Wolf, RL & Contento, I (2010) Food label use and its relation to dietary intake among US adults. J Am Diet Assoc 110, 12331237.
98. Ashfield-Watt, PAL, Welch, AA, Day, NE et al. (2004) Is ‘five-a-day’’ an effective way of increasing fruit and vegetable intakes? Public Health Nutr 7, 257261.
99. Vermeer, WM, Steenhuis, IHM & Seidell, JC (2009) From the point-of-purchase perspective: a qualitative study of the feasibility of interventions aimed at portion-size. Health Policy 90, 7380.
100. Kothe, EJ & Mullan, BA (2011) Perceptions of fruit and vegetable dietary guidelines among Australian young adults. Nutr Diet 68, 262266.
101. Vermeer, WM, Steenhuis, IHM, Leeuwis, FH et al. (2011) View the label before you view the movie: a field experiment into the impact of portion size and Guideline Daily Amounts labelling on soft drinks in cinemas. BMC Public Health 11, 438.
102. Tavelli, S, Beerman, K, Shultz, J et al. (1998) Sources of error and nutritional adequacy of the Food Guide Pyramid. J Am Coll Health 47, 7782.
103. Riley, WT, Beasley, J, Sowell, A et al. (2007) Effects of a web-based food portion training program on food portion estimation. J Nutr Educ Behav 39, 7076.
104. Nayga, R & Capps, O (1999) US consumers’ perceptions of the importance of following the US dietary guidelines. Food Policy 24, 553564.
105. Hannum, S, Carson, L, Evans, E et al. (2004) Use of portion-controlled entrees enhances weight loss in women. Obes Res 12, 538546.
106. Hannum, S, Carson, L, Evans, E et al. (2006) Use of packaged entrees as part of a weight-loss diet in overweight men: an 8-week randomized clinical trial. Diabetes Obes Metab 8, 146155.
107. Pedersen, SD, Kang, J & Kline, GA (2007) Portion control plate for weight loss in obese patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus – a controlled clinical trial. Arch Intern Med 167, 12771283.
108. Guthrie, J & Smallwood, D (2003) Evaluating the effects of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans on consumer behavior and health: methodological challenges. J Am Diet Assoc 103, S42S49.
109. Trubswasser, U & Branca, F (2009) Nutrition policy is taking shape in Europe. Public Health Nutr 12, 295306.
110. Wood, F, Robling, M, Prout, H et al. (2010) A question of balance: a qualitative study of mothers’ interpretations of dietary recommendations. Ann Fam Med 8, 5157.
111. Anderson, AS, Freeman, J, Stead, M et al. (2005) Consumer views on portion size guidance to assist adult dietary choices. J Hum Nutr Diet 21, 406.
112. Hunter, D, Sampson, L, Stampfer, M et al. (1988) Variability in portion sizes of commonly consumed foods among a population of women in the United-States. Am J Epidemiol 127, 12401249.
113. The European Food Information Council (2011) How Do Consumers Respond to Portion Information on Food and Drink Labels? Brussels: EUFIC.
114. Mian, SI & Brauer, PM (2009) Dietary education tools for south Asians with diabetes. Can J Diet Pract Res 70, 2835.
115. Carlton, D, Kicklighter, J, Jonnalagadda, S et al. (2000) Design, development, and formative evaluation of “Put Nutrition Into Practice,” a multimedia nutrition education program for adults. J Am Diet Assoc 100, 555563.
116. Cousineau, TM, Franko, DL, Ciccazzo, M et al. (2006) Web-based nutrition education for college students: is it feasible? Eval Program Plann 29, 2333.
117. Vermeer, WM, Alting, E, Steenhuis, IHM et al. (2010) Value for money or making the healthy choice: the impact of proportional pricing on consumers’ portion size choices. Eur J Public Health 20, 6569.
118. Watts, ML, Hager, MH, Toner, CD et al. (2011) The art of translating nutritional science into dietary guidance: history and evolution of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Nutr Rev 69, 404412.
119. Goldberg, JP & Sliwa, SA (2011) Session 4. Getting balanced nutrition messages across communicating actionable nutrition messages: challenges and opportunities. Proc Nutr Soc 70, 2637.
120. US Department of Agriculture (1992) Food Guide Pyramid. Washington, DC: USDA Centre for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
121. USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion (2000) Serving sizes in the Food Guide Pyramid and on the Nutrition Facts Label: What's Different and Why? Washington, DC: USDA Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion.
122. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (2011) Code of Federal Regulations Title 21: Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion. Sec. 101.12 Reference amounts customarily consumed per eating occasion. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=101.12 (accessed December 2011).
123. Walker, KZ, Woods, JL, Rickard, CA et al. (2008) Product variety in Australian snacks and drinks: how can the consumer make a healthy choice? Public Health Nutr 11, 10461053.
124. Cleanthous, X, Mackintosh, A & Anderson, S (2011) Comparison of reported nutrients and serve size between private label products and branded products in Australian supermarkets. Nutr Diet 68, 120126.
125. Food Safety Authority of Ireland (2011) Scientific Recommendations for Healthy Eating in Ireland. Dublin: Food Safety Authority of Ireland.
126. Ervin, R & Smiciklas-Wright, H (2001) Accuracy in estimating and recalling portion sizes of foods among elderly adults. Nutr Res 21, 703713.
127. Ovaskainen, M, Paturi, M, Reinivuo, H et al. (2008) Accuracy in the estimation of food servings against the portions in food photographs. Eur J Clin Nutr 62, 674681.
128. Wrieden, WL & Momen, NC (2009) Workshop 3: novel approaches for estimating portion sizes. Eur J Clin Nutr 63, S80S81.
129. Cypel, YS, Guenther, PM & Petot, GJ (1997) Validity of portion-size measurement aids: a review. J Am Diet Assoc 97, 289292.
130. Wansink, B & Park, S (2001) At the movies: how external cues and perceived taste impact consumption volume. Food Qual Prefer 12, 6974.
131. Geier, AB, Rozin, P & Doros, G (2006) Unit bias – a new heuristic that helps explain the effect of portion size on food intake. Psychol Sci 17, 521525.
132. Vartanian, LR, Herman, CP & Wansink, B (2008) Are we aware of the external factors that influence our food intake? Health Psychol 27, 533538.
133. Wansink, B (2004) Environmental factors that increase the food intake and consumption volume of unknowing consumers. Annu Rev Nutr 24, 455479.
134. Koh, J & Pliner, P (2009) The effects of degree of acquaintance, plate size, and sharing on food intake. Appetite 52, 595602.
135. Tetley, A, Brunstrom, J & Griffiths, P (2009) Individual differences in food-cue reactivity. The role of BMI and everyday portion-size selections. Appetite 52, 614620.
136. Ferriday, D & Brunstrom, JM (2008) How does food-cue exposure lead to larger meal sizes? Br J Nutr 100, 13251332.
137. Huizinga, MM, Carlisle, AJ, Cavanaugh, KL et al. (2009) Literacy, numeracy, and portion-size estimation skills. Am J Prev Med 36, 324328.
138. Rothman, RL, Housam, R, Weiss, H et al. (2006) Patient understanding of food labels – the role of literacy and numeracy. Am J Prev Med 31, 391398.
139. Rolls, BJ, Roe, LS, Halverson, KH et al. (2007) Using a smaller plate did not reduce energy intake at meals. Appetite 49, 652660.
140. Shah, M, Schroeder, R, Winn, W et al. (2011) A pilot study to investigate the effect of plate size on meal energy intake in normal weight and overweight/obese women. J Hum Nutr Diet 24, 612615.
141. Brunstrom, JM, Shakeshaft, NG & Alexander, E (2010) Familiarity changes expectations about fullness. Appetite 54, 587590.
142. Wansink, B, Painter, J & North, J (2005) Bottomless bowls: why visual cues of portion size may influence intake. Obes Res 13, 93100.
143. Fay, SH, Ferriday, D, Hinton, EC et al. (2011) What determines real-world meal size? Evidence for pre-meal planning. Appetite 56, 284289.
144. Wansink, B & van Ittersum, K (2007) Portion size me: downsizing our consumption norms. J Am Diet Assoc 107, 11031106.
145. Brunstrom, JM & Shakeshaft, NSG (2009) Measuring affective (liking) and non-affective (expected satiety) determinants of portion size and food reward. Appetite 52, 108114.
146. Brunstrom, JM, Shakeshaft, NG & Scott-Samuel, NE (2008) Measuring ‘expected satiety’ in a range of common foods using a method of constant stimuli. Appetite 51, 604614.
147. Brunstrom, JM & Rogers, PJ (2009) How many calories are on our plate? Expected fullness, not liking, determines meal-size selection. Obesity 17, 18841890.
148. Brunstrom, JM, Collingwood, J & Rogers, PJ (2010) Perceived volume, expected satiation, and the energy content of self-selected meals. Appetite 55, 2529.
149. Brunstrom, JM (2011) The control of meal size in human subjects: a role for expected satiety, expected satiation and premeal planning. Proc Nutr Soc 70, 155161.
150. Scheibehenne, B, Todd, PM & Wansink, B (2010) Dining in the dark. The importance of visual cues for food consumption and satiety. Appetite 55, 710713.
151. Shimizu, M, Payne, CR & Wansink, B (2010) When snacks become meals: how hunger and environmental cues bias food intake. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 7, 63.
152. Brunstrom, JM, Rogers, PJ, Pothos, EM et al. (2008) Estimating everyday portion size using a ‘method of constant stimuli’: In a student sample, portion size is predicted by gender, dietary behaviour, and hunger, but not BMI. Appetite 51, 296301.
153. Wansink, B & Chandon, P (2006) Can “low-fat” nutrition labels lead to obesity? J Market Res 43, 605617.