61–70 of 90 posts
Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everything has to list nutritional info per 100g(or ml if it's liquid), and tic-tacs correctly show their average of 2 calories per candy[1]. It also is a wakeup call to how heavy snacks are, a can of Pringles is almost 900 calories even though they'd prefer you use t…
My favorite serving size: 1/3 of a muffin.
Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everything has to list nutritional info per 100g(or ml if it's liquid), and tic-tacs correctly show their average of 2 calories per candy[1]. It also is a wakeup call to how heavy snacks are, a can of Pringles is almost 900 calories even though they'd prefer you use t…
e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl...
I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by this new regulation in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't all nutritional labels in the US in metric?
Wait really? You buy quantities in imperial but the nutritional labels are in metric? Good luck with that!
The serving sizes are often in imperial (although the closest label shows serving size 1 can). The quantities of fat, sodium, sugar, protein are all grams or milligrams for sodium. But ounces and grams for those things are equally unrelatable for me. I don't consider the mass of these items, I just know them as a quantity on a label. If I were cooking and adding sugar or salt, it would be by volume, not mass.
Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everything has to list nutritional info per 100g(or ml if it's liquid), and tic-tacs correctly show their average of 2 calories per candy[1]. It also is a wakeup call to how heavy snacks are, a can of Pringles is almost 900 calories even though they'd prefer you use t…
The US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by…
It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.
Do they really say "sugar free" on the label? I think the claim is that one serving (one tic-tac) has 0g of sugar, which, assuming rounding to the nearest whole number, is probably true. Unfortunately, that might lead someone to say, well, there are 60 tic-tacs in a box, and 60 * 0 is still 0, so I can eat all 60 for 0g of sugar, which of course is not true.
And they do list the calories to two digits (which are The disadvantage of standardized labelling is that there will be edge cases, such as when the serving size is under half a gram. Some other countries standardize on 100g for size, but for tic-tacs that would be more than 3 typical containers worth. Listing all three (portion, container and 100g size) would require a fold-out label to fit, which would negatively impact a product kept in purses and pockets.
Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everything has to list nutritional info per 100g(or ml if it's liquid), and tic-tacs correctly show their average of 2 calories per candy[1]. It also is a wakeup call to how heavy snacks are, a can of Pringles is almost 900 calories even though they'd prefer you use t…
> servings almost never match the actual consumption My favorite serving size: 1/3 of a muffin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by…
Listing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.
Unless you carry around a food scale to measure out all your snacks, I fail to understand why 100g^-1 is useful.
I would however be interested in a pie chart that displays the calories from different macros. Then tic tac would be 100% sugar and you could compare to soda, also 100% sugar, or chips, which are maybe 65% fat and 5% protein and 30% carbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by…
Listing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not if you have diabetes or if you're into a keto/low carb diet But yes in the context of 70% of people being overweitgh/obese I guess it doesn't matter, the bar is low so we can lower it ever further
Nobody is overweight due to eating too many tic-tacs.
That's exactly the same thing, and it's as dumb as it sounds
