3 ms·
Same with the energy label of food. In the metric system: Portion sizes of 65 gram in a 90 gram container. Then the label shows for 10 gram, portion size, and
by SCHiM 5y ago
Same with the energy label of food. In the metric system:
Portion sizes of 65 gram in a 90 gram container. Then the label shows for 10 gram, portion size, and 100 grams. But not the actual weight of the container!
I mean, what 'portion' consists of 65/90th of a container? They know full well that the actual portion people consume $PRODUCT in is what is in the box.
- pkaye 5y agoA recent change in US nutrition labels is the serving size should be more realistic so they update the numbers to match consumer behavior. The other thing is consumption is influenced by container size. People tend to drink entire bottles of soda regardless of size so labeling should reflect that. https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nutrition-facts-label https://www.fda.gov/food/food-labeling-nutrition/changes-nut...
- c618b9b695c4 5y agoStill not great leaving it up to manufacturers. Would have loved if it was a flat XX/100grams plus an additional column of XX/package.
- SCHiM 5y agoI mean, obviously the best thing is: 1gram, 100gram, container size. That way: you always know the exact amount you're actually buying, + it's easy to calculate if you consume less than the container, either by nx the amount of 1gram or nx100 gram of the product. Nothing else really makes sense, for any reason.