Incorrect Food Labels....?

Mr_Knight
Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
edited November 2024 in Food and Nutrition
Is it my imagination, or is there something rather off with this food label?

gBfajPJ.jpg

Replies

  • PeachyPlum
    PeachyPlum Posts: 1,243 Member
    Yes, you are eating two servings of cheerios. You're welcome. :wink:
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    PeachyPlum wrote: »
    Yes, you are eating two servings of cheerios. You're welcome. :wink:

    Wrong thread.

    Unless they're suddenly making Cheerios out of protein powder. :tongue:
  • peachyfuzzle
    peachyfuzzle Posts: 1,122 Member
    It's in French, but the bag does not appear to be surrendering?
  • Cortelli
    Cortelli Posts: 1,369 Member
    That's the new "net fat" labeling. You don't really count all the fat because some of it passes as oily goo and some is magic. But you always count all the protein. Always.
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Cortelli wrote: »
    That's the new "net fat" labeling. You don't really count all the fat because some of it passes as oily goo and some is magic. But you always count all the protein. Always.

    :smiley:

    I'm not crazy, am I? That should be ~160 calories, not 120 calories. Unless they buggered the macros up.

    That's a pretty substantial miss...
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    I wouldn't even know how to log that. Very strange. Can you find more information online anywhere?
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    Indeed.
    9g fat x 9 cals/g = 81 cals
    19g protein x 4 cals/g = 76 cals

    Total should be 157 cals.
  • jennifershoo
    jennifershoo Posts: 3,198 Member
    What product is it?
  • Mr_Knight
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    It was a frozen chicken product. Also came across a bag of frozen chicken breasts that had 1/3 less calories than the USDA standard entry. No doubt due to "plumping" or some such nonsense.

    Which is a problem, because USDA is the fallback for when we don't where else to go for nutritional deets. But a 1/3 difference is...significant.
  • Cortelli
    Cortelli Posts: 1,369 Member
    Mr_Knight wrote: »
    It was a frozen chicken product. Also came across a bag of frozen chicken breasts that had 1/3 less calories than the USDA standard entry. No doubt due to "plumping" or some such nonsense.

    Which is a problem, because USDA is the fallback for when we don't where else to go for nutritional deets. But a 1/3 difference is...significant.

    Hmmm . . . might actually be that the calories are pretty close, but that the fat content is wrong. Can't imagine a frozen chicken product with that fat/protein ratio that doesn't also have some carbs (I could see that fat/protein, but I'd think it was breaded and fried or something and some carbs would show up).

    Anyway - this is just more of the wacky BS we all have to deal with in trying to track closely (as you know) - mistakes, rounding errors, estimates, etc. - usually it's just noise but some of the things like this and the "plumped" chicken breasts one seem pretty egregious.
  • PeachyPlum
    PeachyPlum Posts: 1,243 Member
    peachyfuzzle wrote: »
    It's in French, but the bag does not appear to be surrendering?

    Nice one!
This discussion has been closed.

Categories