4 ms·

The conclusion of the article seems to be related to the general rule that if, say, a box of nails advertises 1000 nails, the manufacturer will have set the act

by SamBam 8y ago

The conclusion of the article seems to be related to the general rule that if, say, a box of nails advertises 1000 nails, the manufacturer will have set the actual average to be higher than 1000 nails so that some large majority of buyers will always have at least 1000 nails in the box. (I seem to recall an A-Level stats question on my exam asking what the average should be, to ensure that 95% of buyers received at least 1000 nails.) Again the statement on the box is not a statement of reality, but a contract that the buyer should be (almost) guaranteed of getting at least 1000 nails. If I recall correctly, calorie values on nutrition boxes are the same, at least in the US: a 100 calorie snack bag will have at least 100 calories, because the FDA mandates that the seller should be at minimum providing what it claims.

NullPrefix 8y ago
>If I recall correctly, calorie values on nutrition boxes are the same, at least in the US: a 100 calorie snack bag will have at least 100 calories, because the FDA mandates that the seller should be at minimum providing what it claims. Check out our new BigMac Zero. At least zero calories.
- SamBam 8y ago
  The FDA definitely has requirements for anything advertising "zero calories," "no calories," "reduced calories" etc: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.60 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfr... As for the "minimum calories," I've searched and either I'm out of date or was never correct: it seems like the FDA used to have a "80/120 rule": "beneficial nutrients" (vitamin, mineral, protein, total carbohydrate, etc.) must be at least 80% of the label value and "nutrients to limit" (calories, sugars, fats, etc.) must no greater than 120% of the label value. So calories could theoretically be lower than advertised, but not significantly higher. The FDA seems to no longer have this rule, but calories is still on the "nutrients to limit" side, so the FDA would be mandating maximums, not minimums. My mistake.
  - tspiteri 8y ago
    Calories should not be considered as just "a nutrient to limit" in such a way that the number is only a maximum. I sometimes used to look at the energy value to choose a ready meal that had at least enough energy so that I would not remain hungry after eating; providing significantly less energy would leave me hungry.
- ben_w 8y ago
  You jest, but TicTacs are allowed to be labelled “sugar free” despite being 91.3% sugar because, to quote, “the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving“ - https://www.tictacusa.com/en/faq https://www.tictacusa.com/en/faq
  - NeedMoreTea 8y ago
    lol. I do love the way so many foods come up with a "serving" that almost no human customer has ever duplicated.
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    That's bad, but just because they're allowed doesn't mean they should do it.
  - zerocrates 8y ago
    You could easily notice this same thing in the early days of trans fat removal from product: it was common to see labels and nutrition panels touting "0g trans fats" but have partially hydrogenated oils pretty high up the ingredients list: again mostly on the back of a small serving size. I suppose it's still around in some product categories. I don't recall ever seeing Tic Tacs actually claim "sugar free," though. "Zero grams" is allowed and most people read it the same way, while "sugar free" actually has some more requirements to be able to use.
  - benj111 8y ago
    So Nutrition facts can round to the nearest gram despite allowing servings to be less than a gram? What a well thought out policy. Ps I thought the US used imperial measures, why are grams getting used?
    - bluGill 8y ago
      US is a mix of measures. Imperial is allowed, but there are only a few places where it is required. Metric is in fact very common - but only for measures not in day to day use (that is intentionally contradictory have fun figuring it out)
devy 8y ago
> the general rule that if, say, a box of nails advertises 1000 nails, the manufacturer will have set the actual average to be higher than 1000 nails so that some large majority of buyers will always have at least 1000 nails in the box. This is actually not a good analogy. These days nails are mass produced and quality controls are good to ensure each has the same rough shape and weight +/- by a few percentage points. And to ensure a quantity for a box is actually ensuring the weight - much easier to control.
- theoh 8y ago
  "Overs and unders" are still a thing in manufacturing. Up to 10% either way. e.g. https://support.discmakers.com/hc/en-us/articles/209954927-My-order-is-subject-to-5-over-or-under-my-ordered-quantity-What-does-this-mean-overs-and-unders- https://support.discmakers.com/hc/en-us/articles/209954927-M... https://www.lumi.com/blog/explaining-overs-unders https://www.lumi.com/blog/explaining-overs-unders http://www.admorefolders.com/overunder.html http://www.admorefolders.com/overunder.html
acheron 8y ago
This is the reason for the "bakers' dozen". Bakers were at one time required to sell a minimum amount by weight in a dozen, and so would throw in one extra item to ensure the minimum was there. Ah, here it's on Wikipedia: "In the United Kingdom when selling certain goods, bakers were obliged to sell goods by the dozen at a specific weight or quality (or a specific average weight). During this time, bakers who sold a dozen units that failed to meet this requirement could be penalized with a fine. Therefore to avoid risking this penalty, some bakers included an extra unit to be sure the minimum weight was met"

by SamBam 8y ago

NullPrefix 8y ago

>If I recall correctly, calorie values on nutrition boxes are the same, at least in the US: a 100 calorie snack bag will have at least 100 calories, because the FDA mandates that the seller should be at minimum providing what it claims. Check out our new BigMac Zero. At least zero calories.

SamBam 8y ago
The FDA definitely has requirements for anything advertising "zero calories," "no calories," "reduced calories" etc: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=101.60 https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfr... As for the "minimum calories," I've searched and either I'm out of date or was never correct: it seems like the FDA used to have a "80/120 rule": "beneficial nutrients" (vitamin, mineral, protein, total carbohydrate, etc.) must be at least 80% of the label value and "nutrients to limit" (calories, sugars, fats, etc.) must no greater than 120% of the label value. So calories could theoretically be lower than advertised, but not significantly higher. The FDA seems to no longer have this rule, but calories is still on the "nutrients to limit" side, so the FDA would be mandating maximums, not minimums. My mistake.
- tspiteri 8y ago
  Calories should not be considered as just "a nutrient to limit" in such a way that the number is only a maximum. I sometimes used to look at the energy value to choose a ready meal that had at least enough energy so that I would not remain hungry after eating; providing significantly less energy would leave me hungry.
ben_w 8y ago
You jest, but TicTacs are allowed to be labelled “sugar free” despite being 91.3% sugar because, to quote, “the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving“ - https://www.tictacusa.com/en/faq https://www.tictacusa.com/en/faq
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  lol. I do love the way so many foods come up with a "serving" that almost no human customer has ever duplicated.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  That's bad, but just because they're allowed doesn't mean they should do it.
- zerocrates 8y ago
  You could easily notice this same thing in the early days of trans fat removal from product: it was common to see labels and nutrition panels touting "0g trans fats" but have partially hydrogenated oils pretty high up the ingredients list: again mostly on the back of a small serving size. I suppose it's still around in some product categories. I don't recall ever seeing Tic Tacs actually claim "sugar free," though. "Zero grams" is allowed and most people read it the same way, while "sugar free" actually has some more requirements to be able to use.
- benj111 8y ago
  So Nutrition facts can round to the nearest gram despite allowing servings to be less than a gram? What a well thought out policy. Ps I thought the US used imperial measures, why are grams getting used?
  - bluGill 8y ago
    US is a mix of measures. Imperial is allowed, but there are only a few places where it is required. Metric is in fact very common - but only for measures not in day to day use (that is intentionally contradictory have fun figuring it out)

devy 8y ago

> the general rule that if, say, a box of nails advertises 1000 nails, the manufacturer will have set the actual average to be higher than 1000 nails so that some large majority of buyers will always have at least 1000 nails in the box. This is actually not a good analogy. These days nails are mass produced and quality controls are good to ensure each has the same rough shape and weight +/- by a few percentage points. And to ensure a quantity for a box is actually ensuring the weight - much easier to control.

theoh 8y ago
"Overs and unders" are still a thing in manufacturing. Up to 10% either way. e.g. https://support.discmakers.com/hc/en-us/articles/209954927-My-order-is-subject-to-5-over-or-under-my-ordered-quantity-What-does-this-mean-overs-and-unders- https://support.discmakers.com/hc/en-us/articles/209954927-M... https://www.lumi.com/blog/explaining-overs-unders https://www.lumi.com/blog/explaining-overs-unders http://www.admorefolders.com/overunder.html http://www.admorefolders.com/overunder.html

acheron 8y ago

This is the reason for the "bakers' dozen". Bakers were at one time required to sell a minimum amount by weight in a dozen, and so would throw in one extra item to ensure the minimum was there. Ah, here it's on Wikipedia: "In the United Kingdom when selling certain goods, bakers were obliged to sell goods by the dozen at a specific weight or quality (or a specific average weight). During this time, bakers who sold a dozen units that failed to meet this requirement could be penalized with a fine. Therefore to avoid risking this penalty, some bakers included an extra unit to be sure the minimum weight was met"