6 ms·

I'm happy to see that fat and protein are the main ingredients. http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq

I'm happy to see that fat and protein are the main ingredients. http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.

resf 9y ago
Wow, do nutrition labels in USA generally not show figures per 100g?
- mmanfrin 9y ago
  No, and it's really obnoxious, because there are thresholds where content doesn't have to be listed. For example, a package of tic-tacs will say that it has 0g sugar per serving (a 'serving' being one tic-tac), but the whole (small) package will have something like 20g of sugar.
  - 3pt14159 9y ago
    This is one thing I actually think America does right. I'm the type of person to eat a single tic-tac, but even if I acknowledge that there are failures, it's far easier for me to get a rough sense as to how bad eating something is if it lists it's actual content. Ideally there would be both, but having to do 0.85 * 260 just to get the calorie count for this is just annoying. I do think the design of the labels is completely ridiculous, though. Sugar, trans fats, and caloric count should be made much more prominent and put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.
    - kazinator 9y ago
      > put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America. The hypothesis here being what? Lack of red highlighting in informative tables is the cause for uninformedness? :)
    - Symbiote 9y ago
      That's more-or-less what Sainsbury's (in the UK) did with their products. Most things must show the amount per serving and the amount per 100g (in common across the EU), but they also show a chart with green/orange/red based on a typical serving size. Example: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/_61458111_004398823-1.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- Terribledactyl 9y ago
  It's either a seemingly random measure or, if in a single serving container, the total calories.
- wott 9y ago
  We should consider ourselves lucky they used grams at all and not their fancy units.
  - DrScump 9y ago
    What drives me nuts is that the Nutrition Information has metric units but the front of the package may not (e.g. "One Quart (32 oz)" but no liter equivalent printed). Worse is that many products have bogus information. I'm not talking just about the inexactness of the methods, but in many cases the macronutrient math doesn't add up. Total calories should be about (protein + carb)x4 + (fat)x9. Too often, it isn't close. I was comparing two versions within a product line yesterday (chili with beans vs without beans), and the calorie count for one mismatched the macronutrient breakdown by almost 10%.
    - wolfgang42 9y ago
      If you think that's bad, I encountered a package of tofu recently which stated "Serving Size: 1/4 package; Servings per Package: 8"! Things like that really make you wonder about the reliability of the rest of the information on the label...
- adrianmonk 9y ago
  It's per serving. Obviously, it's easier to compare if they are all relative to 100g, but arguably per-serving is more useful when making eating decisions. When I'm buying a food, I'm not trying to do science; I'm trying to figure out how much of a particular nutrient I'm personally going to get when I eat that item. For example, if I have soup, there's no way I'll have as little as 100g of it. If I have tea, there's no way I'm going to have as much as 100g of tea leaves. The mass of a serving could be 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude different depending on the type of food. Serving sizes are required by law to be "based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating" (see https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument... ).
  - kbart 9y ago
    Serving size is highly individual matter and, from my personal experience, usually much smaller than actual amount I take of pretty much everything.
  - seanwilson 9y ago
    The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. Generally I find the serving sizes so low you're best to completely ignore them.
    - icebraining 9y ago
      The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. In fact, I think that's now the norm in the whole of the EU.
  - aedron 9y ago
    Why not both? Which is what is used in Europe.
    - adrianmonk 9y ago
      It can certainly go either way, but space and simplicity would be the arguments against including both. On a small label, you might need to use a smaller font. Even if you have enough space, a more minimalist approach can be quicker to read (provided that it contains the information you actually want).
HillaryBriss 9y ago
interesting. FWIW, here's the ingredients list for the Beyond Meat burger: water, pea protein isolate, oil blend (canola oil, flaxseed oil, palmoil, sunflower oil, dha algal oil), methylcellulose, carrageenan, potassium bicarbonate, caramel color†, yeast extract, maltodextrin, potassium chloride, tapioca starch, sorbitol, calcium chloride, natural flavoring, spices, salt, vegetable extract mix (spinach, broccoli, carrot, tomato, beet, shiitake mushroom), l-cysteine hydrochloride, beetjuice powder (flavor and color), natural hickory smoke concentrate, calcium sulfate, onion powder, onion extract, mesquite powder, sugar‡, pomegranate seed powder, ferric phosphate (iron), paprika extract (spice and color), garlic extract, cyanocobalamin (vitamin b12)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
pkaye 9y ago
I wish they would list the phosphorus contents. I'm on dialysis and require high protein requirements every day but must restrict phosphorus. If I knew this number I could better account for it in my diet. Unfortunately phosphorus is not required in current labeling requirements.
- mtl_usr 9y ago
  That's a shame. Curious, how do you normally figure out the phosphorus content ? Is there a guideline somewhere that gives you an adequate estimate ?
  - pkaye 9y ago
    For many common food items, the USDA has a database of full nutrition information including phosphorus. This is a God send for me. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list Beyond thing I have few tricks to get a estimate but mostly for those things I don't know the numbers well, I eat in moderation.
mtl_usr 9y ago
> A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs. Which makes them pretty bad, even worst for dieting.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
petre 9y ago
If you add up the percentages the total amounts to 40%. I wonder what's the rest.
- Luc 9y ago
  Water
ThePadawan 9y ago
I'm glad as well - I've found that even seemingly similar products by different brands will wildly vary in carb/protein content. I could go grab two brands of non-meat burger patty off the shelves right now, and one will be 25% carbs, and one 6%. It's ridiculous.

resf 9y ago

Wow, do nutrition labels in USA generally not show figures per 100g?

mmanfrin 9y ago
No, and it's really obnoxious, because there are thresholds where content doesn't have to be listed. For example, a package of tic-tacs will say that it has 0g sugar per serving (a 'serving' being one tic-tac), but the whole (small) package will have something like 20g of sugar.
- 3pt14159 9y ago
  This is one thing I actually think America does right. I'm the type of person to eat a single tic-tac, but even if I acknowledge that there are failures, it's far easier for me to get a rough sense as to how bad eating something is if it lists it's actual content. Ideally there would be both, but having to do 0.85 * 260 just to get the calorie count for this is just annoying. I do think the design of the labels is completely ridiculous, though. Sugar, trans fats, and caloric count should be made much more prominent and put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.
  - kazinator 9y ago
    > put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America. The hypothesis here being what? Lack of red highlighting in informative tables is the cause for uninformedness? :)
  - Symbiote 9y ago
    That's more-or-less what Sainsbury's (in the UK) did with their products. Most things must show the amount per serving and the amount per 100g (in common across the EU), but they also show a chart with green/orange/red based on a typical serving size. Example: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/_61458111_004398823-1.jpg https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Terribledactyl 9y ago
It's either a seemingly random measure or, if in a single serving container, the total calories.
wott 9y ago
We should consider ourselves lucky they used grams at all and not their fancy units.
- DrScump 9y ago
  What drives me nuts is that the Nutrition Information has metric units but the front of the package may not (e.g. "One Quart (32 oz)" but no liter equivalent printed). Worse is that many products have bogus information. I'm not talking just about the inexactness of the methods, but in many cases the macronutrient math doesn't add up. Total calories should be about (protein + carb)x4 + (fat)x9. Too often, it isn't close. I was comparing two versions within a product line yesterday (chili with beans vs without beans), and the calorie count for one mismatched the macronutrient breakdown by almost 10%.
  - wolfgang42 9y ago
    If you think that's bad, I encountered a package of tofu recently which stated "Serving Size: 1/4 package; Servings per Package: 8"! Things like that really make you wonder about the reliability of the rest of the information on the label...
adrianmonk 9y ago
It's per serving. Obviously, it's easier to compare if they are all relative to 100g, but arguably per-serving is more useful when making eating decisions. When I'm buying a food, I'm not trying to do science; I'm trying to figure out how much of a particular nutrient I'm personally going to get when I eat that item. For example, if I have soup, there's no way I'll have as little as 100g of it. If I have tea, there's no way I'm going to have as much as 100g of tea leaves. The mass of a serving could be 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude different depending on the type of food. Serving sizes are required by law to be "based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating" (see https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm385663.htm https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument... ).
- kbart 9y ago
  Serving size is highly individual matter and, from my personal experience, usually much smaller than actual amount I take of pretty much everything.
- seanwilson 9y ago
  The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. Generally I find the serving sizes so low you're best to completely ignore them.
  - icebraining 9y ago
    The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. In fact, I think that's now the norm in the whole of the EU.
- aedron 9y ago
  Why not both? Which is what is used in Europe.
  - adrianmonk 9y ago
    It can certainly go either way, but space and simplicity would be the arguments against including both. On a small label, you might need to use a smaller font. Even if you have enough space, a more minimalist approach can be quicker to read (provided that it contains the information you actually want).

HillaryBriss 9y ago

interesting. FWIW, here's the ingredients list for the Beyond Meat burger: water, pea protein isolate, oil blend (canola oil, flaxseed oil, palmoil, sunflower oil, dha algal oil), methylcellulose, carrageenan, potassium bicarbonate, caramel color†, yeast extract, maltodextrin, potassium chloride, tapioca starch, sorbitol, calcium chloride, natural flavoring, spices, salt, vegetable extract mix (spinach, broccoli, carrot, tomato, beet, shiitake mushroom), l-cysteine hydrochloride, beetjuice powder (flavor and color), natural hickory smoke concentrate, calcium sulfate, onion powder, onion extract, mesquite powder, sugar‡, pomegranate seed powder, ferric phosphate (iron), paprika extract (spice and color), garlic extract, cyanocobalamin (vitamin b12)

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

pkaye 9y ago

I wish they would list the phosphorus contents. I'm on dialysis and require high protein requirements every day but must restrict phosphorus. If I knew this number I could better account for it in my diet. Unfortunately phosphorus is not required in current labeling requirements.

mtl_usr 9y ago
That's a shame. Curious, how do you normally figure out the phosphorus content ? Is there a guideline somewhere that gives you an adequate estimate ?
- pkaye 9y ago
  For many common food items, the USDA has a database of full nutrition information including phosphorus. This is a God send for me. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list Beyond thing I have few tricks to get a estimate but mostly for those things I don't know the numbers well, I eat in moderation.

mtl_usr 9y ago

> A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs. Which makes them pretty bad, even worst for dieting.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

petre 9y ago

If you add up the percentages the total amounts to 40%. I wonder what's the rest.

Luc 9y ago
Water

ThePadawan 9y ago

I'm glad as well - I've found that even seemingly similar products by different brands will wildly vary in carb/protein content. I could go grab two brands of non-meat burger patty off the shelves right now, and one will be 25% carbs, and one 6%. It's ridiculous.