4 ms·

>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

>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 7y 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 As for the "minimum calories," I've searched and either I'm out of date or was never correct: it seems like the FDA used to have a "80/120 rule": "beneficial nutrients" (vitamin, mineral, protein, total carbohydrate, etc.)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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
  lol. I do love the way so many foods come up with a "serving" that almost no human customer has ever duplicated.
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  That's bad, but just because they're allowed doesn't mean they should do it.
- zerocrates 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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)
    - benj111 7y ago
      In Europe theres regulations over labelling etc. In the UK if you buy a 'pint' of milk it will still be labelled 0.568 litres. Presumably there are some rules in the US also, or labels could just use some obscure measures that hide what a product contains.

SamBam 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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 7y ago
lol. I do love the way so many foods come up with a "serving" that almost no human customer has ever duplicated.
pbhjpbhj 7y ago
That's bad, but just because they're allowed doesn't mean they should do it.
zerocrates 7y 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 7y 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 7y 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)
  - benj111 7y ago
    In Europe theres regulations over labelling etc. In the UK if you buy a 'pint' of milk it will still be labelled 0.568 litres. Presumably there are some rules in the US also, or labels could just use some obscure measures that hide what a product contains.