Lies, damn lies and the FDA

1235»

Replies

  • dutchandkiwi
    dutchandkiwi Posts: 1,389 Member
    seska422 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I like the way the UK label does the 100 g/ml thing better than the one you posted, but I'm sure I could get used to that too. What I'd be opposed to is having ONLY the 100 g measure.
    Yeah, that wouldn't be useful. I don't think anyone is pushing for that.

    To be honest - the serving sizes and DI in the US drove me completely bonkers when I was there. I knew they were way too small for reality and my DI is not the DI for many others - here it is 100g for comparison and I love love it
  • MelodyandBarbells
    MelodyandBarbells Posts: 7,724 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    No, you are missing the point. Even if you assume people use a much higher serving size than is labeled on the package (1 or 2 seconds or the 5-6 sprays the UK product suggests for a pan) vs. the size that rounds down to 0 it's still a calorie saving.

    Just look at the amount on a pan when sprayed (in any kind of normal way) vs. poured from a bottle or when a TBSP of butter is melted. If you spray it on food compare the amount to adding oil to a bowl and mixing vegetables around in it (another common practice it replaces).

    You're still stuck on your own frame of reference, as in normal, to you. Also, when consumers use their "zero calorie" spray, they may not always be replacing previous practices. The "zero calorie fat free" spray could be an opportunity to either introduce new uses or increase instances of prior uses.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories