81–90 of 90 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per 100g or 100ml is mandatory, but it is allowed to show per serving (for instance a hand of M&Ms).
> for instance a hand of M&Ms An excellent example of "serving" stupidity. How big a hand? Child's hand? Adult's hand? Bodybuilder's? Woman? Man? Full? Kind of full? I have absolutely no idea what a "serving of cheese" constitutes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for instance a hand of M&Ms An excellent example of "serving" stupidity. How big a hand? Child's hand? Adult's hand? Bodybuilder's? Woman? Man? Full? Kind of full? I have absolutely no idea what a "serving of cheese" constitutes.
True, but it is mentioned what a serving is. For instance: "Portion (40g)"
Overall, humans are dumb and can't (or won't) do math in their heads. Consider the stupid thing with the failed 1/3 lb burger positioned in the market against the 1/4 lb burger ( https://www.snopes.com/news/2022/06/17/third-pound-burger-fr... ).
If one product says "5g fat / serving [serving size: 40g]" and another says "4g fat / serving [serving size: 30g]", many many people will think that the second one has lower fat content.
If these were normalized to 100g, it would be clear that the first has 5/40*100 = 12.5g of fat whereas the second has 4/30*100 = 13.3g of fat.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per 100g or 100ml is mandatory, but it is allowed to show per serving (for instance a hand of M&Ms).
> for instance a hand of M&Ms An excellent example of "serving" stupidity. How big a hand? Child's hand? Adult's hand? Bodybuilder's? Woman? Man? Full? Kind of full? I have absolutely no idea what a "serving of cheese" constitutes.
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.
I don't mean to be snarky, but there's always a weight listed on stuff, I think that removes the requirement for carrying a food scale?
Sure, but now we're back to the current US system, where you have to multiply or divide by the amount in the container (either servings per container, or grams per container) to make sense of the measurement. Standardizing to 100g doesn't actually make it easier to compare foods, because I don't know how 100g of popcorn compares to 100g of chocolate or 100g of soup. It just doesn't mean anything to me. Just list the…
For example, I want to buy a yogurt with highest amount of protein. Serving sizes may vary between 150 and to 500gr. With standardized labels it is very easy task.
In my country we have calories listed for both 100g/container and nutrients are always listed for 100g and sometimes for full contaiber. I almost always use 100g part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Per 100g helps people compare similar products. But is that the problem that needs solving? I don't really think so. The issue is that people binge an entire package of food and don't realize how many calories they're actually consuming. These people are not helped by being persuaded to binge a bag of chips with 5% fewer calories.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Per 100g doesn't make it easy to compare a bag of chips to a can of soda. 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%…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but now we're back to the current US system, where you have to multiply or divide by the amount in the container (either servings per container, or grams per container) to make sense of the measurement. Standardizing to 100g doesn't actually make it easier to compare foods, because I don't know how 100g of popcorn compares to 100g of chocolate or 100g of soup. It just doesn't mean anything to me. Just list the…
From my experience, it does make it easier if you need to compare similar foods. For example, I want to buy a yogurt with highest amount of protein. Serving sizes may vary between 150 and to 500gr. With standardized labels it is very easy task. In my country we have calories listed for both 100g/container and nutrients are always listed for 100g and sometimes for full contaiber. I almost always use 100g part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per 100g doesn't make it easy to compare a bag of chips to a can of soda. 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%…
There is quite a bit of water in soda. While there is a lot of sugar, it is about 10% which is a bit less than 100. Specifying per 100g (or some other size) makes it quite easy to compare two different products. Of course you also have to take into consideration how much of the product you will consume
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Per 100g helps people compare similar products. But is that the problem that needs solving? I don't really think so. The issue is that people binge an entire package of food and don't realize how many calories they're actually consuming. These people are not helped by being persuaded to binge a bag of chips with 5% fewer calories.
I've been on a diet and I have a spreadsheet where I transform everything to 100g calories