4 ms·
Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everythi
by Hamcha 3y ago
Always found the "X per serving" stupid, servings almost never match the actual consumption. Don't know if it's a Europe law or per-state, but in Italy everything has to list nutritional info per 100g(or ml if it's liquid), and tic-tacs correctly show their average of 2 calories per candy[1]. It also is a wakeup call to how heavy snacks are, a can of Pringles is almost 900 calories even though they'd prefer you use their serving size of 30g (about 13 chips)
1. https://images.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/400/840/039/9324/ingredients_en.51.full.jpg https://images.openfoodfacts.org/images/products/400/840/039...
- Izkata 3y ago> servings almost never match the actual consumption My favorite serving size: 1/3 of a muffin.
- scarby2 3y agoi bought some chips somewhat recently and the serving size was listed as "6 chips".
- MerelyMortal 3y agoI recently ran across some instructions that said to measure 1/3 of an inch... I was beside myself.
- manfre 3y ago2/3 of a pickle spear. Any more and it can't round to 0.
- kube-system 3y agoThe US has started implementing an even simpler system. Any foods that are packaged in a way that could plausibly be consumed in a single serving must list the nutrition facts for the whole container. e.g. https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2020/01/NutritionLabel-1.jpg https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcseriesblog/wp-content/upl... I think this should be expanded to larger packaging sizes than it currently is. I think that currently only the shorter Pringles cans are affected by this new regulation in the US.
- ahofmann 3y agoListing the ingredients per 100g is better, because you can compare different products. It is the law in Europe (I think) and it's the only sensible solution.
- bagacrap 3y agoPer 100g doesn't make it easy to compare a bag of chips to a can of soda. Unless you carry around a food scale to measure out all your snacks, I fail to understand why 100g^-1 is useful. I would however be interested in a pie chart that displays the calories from different macros. Then tic tac would be 100% sugar and you could compare to soda, also 100% sugar, or chips, which are maybe 65% fat and 5% protein and 30% carbs.
- felurx 3y agoI don't mean to be snarky, but there's always a weight listed on stuff, I think that removes the requirement for carrying a food scale?
- Wowfunhappy 3y agoSure, but now we're back to the current US system, where you have to multiply or divide by the amount in the container (either servings per container, or grams per container) to make sense of the measurement. Standardizing to 100g doesn't actually make it easier to compare foods, because I don't know how 100g of popcorn compares to 100g of chocolate or 100g of soup. It just doesn't mean anything to me. Just list the amount in the container.
- Fetiorin 3y agoFrom my experience, it does make it easier if you need to compare similar foods. For example, I want to buy a yogurt with highest amount of protein. Serving sizes may vary between 150 and to 500gr. With standardized labels it is very easy task. In my country we have calories listed for both 100g/container and nutrients are always listed for 100g and sometimes for full contaiber. I almost always use 100g part.