are nutrition labels usually wrong?!
Today, I was making my sandwhich for lunch, (rosemary ham) and on the label it said that 4 slices was 100 calories, and 56 grams.
I decided to weigh the slices and 4 slices actually turned out to be 130 grams!! so that means its ACTUALLY more than 200 calories.
I'm just wondering which information is more acurate (slices vs weight) and if the labels are usually wrong?
ps, im not that bothered by the 100 calories, just the fact that it was wrong :)
I would check your scale first. Though it is possible for the contents to be wrong it is much more likely there is an error with your scale.
Do a quick google and you will find the weights for common currencies. You can use coins to check the accuracy of your scale.
If your scale is accurate - weigh a few more slices. Does the weight change? In general the packaging will represent calories for the whole package and serving size is "suggestive". Meaning that while the package will contain exactly 1 lbs of meat, each slice can vary in size.
And that is exactly the reason why I weigh everything I never go by slices or anything, I only believe my scale :-)
I was actually reading this one book at the bookstore the other day, called something like :get this, not that at the supermarket (or sthg like it)
and they basically said that yes, most nutrition labels understate weight and thus calories. so apparently, yes a lot of the time the package will say 300g when it's actually more like 370 g...the reason being that they know pple might not buy if they knew how many calories were actually in that thing...
so they cheat...which is why it's better to weigh yourself
it sucks, and i was really annoyed when i read that cos that meant i've been way off in terms of my calorie count!!!...grrr...stupid corporations
By law (in the UK at any rate) nutrition information on packaging has to be only 80% accurate. The pack weight has to hit the number as a minimum... so manufacturers will overfill a pack a little to be on the safe side and avoid the attention of Trading Standards Authorities.
However, the biggest confusion surrounds serving sizes. Very often manufacturers will list the nutrition information 'per serving' and you have to look very carefully to see what 'a serving' size actually is.... sometimes it's half the packet, sometimes the whole pot, sometimes one slice, total vs drained contents. Or manufacturers will list the nutrition information 'per 100g' and you need to do a little maths to convert that back to a serving. Responsible companies will list both side by side.
I'd always recommend check-weighing foods if you're not sure. And scales are a better way to measure weight than 'cups'... which are more appropriate for volume.
Original Post by ajumma:
so apparently, yes a lot of the time the package will say 300g when it's actually more like 370 g...the reason being that they know pple might not buy if they knew how many calories were actually in that thing...
so they cheat...which is why it's better to weigh yourself
Like GI Jane says, they have to overestimate. The laws were put in effect in a pre-obese america (and the UK, it seems), when people still remembered when food companies scammed the poor by selling them non-nutritional food waste... they ate and ate things like "potato flour" but were starving because the "food" they were eating had no calories. Because of that, they're required to feed you at least as many calories as the label says - thus underestimating cals on the label is safe from a legal standpoint, but overestimating is illegal. So now that calories are cheap and we are all fat, it's just annoying.... but if you want to offload some of your anger and understand why such a law was important, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
Original Post by corduroyfirekills3:
Original Post by ajumma:
so apparently, yes a lot of the time the package will say 300g when it's actually more like 370 g...the reason being that they know pple might not buy if they knew how many calories were actually in that thing...
so they cheat...which is why it's better to weigh yourself
Like GI Jane says, they have to overestimate. The laws were put in effect in a pre-obese america (and the UK, it seems), when people still remembered when food companies scammed the poor by selling them non-nutritional food waste... they ate and ate things like "potato flour" but were starving because the "food" they were eating had no calories. Because of that, they're required to feed you at least as many calories as the label says - thus underestimating cals on the label is safe from a legal standpoint, but overestimating is illegal. So now that calories are cheap and we are all fat, it's just annoying.... but if you want to offload some of your anger and understand why such a law was important, read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.
Getting more than you've paid for goes way, way, way back - think Middle Ages or earlier! If you do a quick search for a 'baker's dozen', i.e. 13 instead of 12, you'll see that a baker would be severely punished if they short-changed a customer. Punishments could be anything up to torture and removal of hands, etc. To avoid this, they'd sell 12 rolls and include a 13th free just to make sure the customer wasn't short-changed and they weren't punished.
Though we generally don't cut off hands as punishment anymore, laws are in place to make sure we get what we pay for. Companies add a little extra (a 13th roll, 70 g more...) to make sure they are in line with the law.
Always measure your food.
I can see the point of label misrepresentation in terms of calories.
But this bakers dozen idea is absurd in the face of modern manufacturing processes. In the united states weights and measures are tightly controlled.
There is NO advantage to the manufacturer to pad the pack. A slight variance in gram weight would be tolerated by the financial bottom line but gross miscalculation of weight would impact the profit margin. I cant imagine a company willingly taking a 20% reduction in profit can you?
That 20% variance GI Jane was talking about is likely (though I can not know for sure) to allow variance for natural changes in the source product. That is, feed and other practices, such as the soil a crop is grown in, can impact the nutritional content of food.
Madamq poo-pooed my idea of a baker's dozen influencing food manufacturers.
I just came across this and thought I'd share. Generally, I don't care to argue about such unimportant points. Check out 'secret #13':
http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.a spx?cp-documentid=100238557&page=2
Thank you jessiexo for starting this thread. The discussion is very informative. I was thinking about it but now I will be buying a food scale ASAP. You guys have convinced me that I cannot count calories properly any other way.
