Different labeling rules regarding USA and Canada

PAPYRUS3
PAPYRUS3 Posts: 13,259 Member
in Food and Nutrition
mm1i31gngo99.png
Lifesource Foods Oat Fiber (sourced: usa)
l1zfmhx9dhql.png
Organic Oat Fiber , 227 g (Pack of 1)
Brand: Ecoideas(sourced: Canada)

I'm curious about the differences. Different labeling rules for each country? I'm assuming so.

Canada being more accurate (below 5 grams) and USA allowing companies to post 'zero' calories if amount is less than 5 grams?

Replies

  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,272 Member
    edited March 2023
    The serving sizes are different too?
    top one shows serving size of 1/10 g and then underneath serves per cont. (short for container?) 146
    Bottom one shows serving size 3g.
    if I have understood the labels correctly

    good argument for the australian system where all products must show calories per 100g as well as optionally per serving
  • sbdriver2
    sbdriver2 Posts: 20 Member
    edited March 2023
    I think the top one shows 3 & 1/10g (3.1g), 0 calories? The bottom one is 3g serving and 10 calories. I don't understand the difference in calorie count. Everything else looks fairly close in comparison.
  • BarbaraHelen2013
    BarbaraHelen2013 Posts: 1,940 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    The serving sizes are different too?
    top one shows serving size of 1/10 g and then underneath serves per cont. (short for container?) 146
    Bottom one shows serving size 3g.
    if I have understood the labels correctly

    good argument for the australian system where all products must show calories per 100g as well as optionally per serving

    That’s how we do it in the UK too. Much easier to do a like for like comparison when standing in the supermarket if you can see the per 100g numbers.
  • PAPYRUS3
    PAPYRUS3 Posts: 13,259 Member
    BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    The serving sizes are different too?
    top one shows serving size of 1/10 g and then underneath serves per cont. (short for container?) 146
    Bottom one shows serving size 3g.
    if I have understood the labels correctly

    good argument for the australian system where all products must show calories per 100g as well as optionally per serving

    That’s how we do it in the UK too. Much easier to do a like for like comparison when standing in the supermarket if you can see the per 100g numbers.

    Yes! Then customers really know what they are buying, instead of falling 'victim' to marketing 'tricks'...
    (the top bag is 3 & 1/10g (3.1g), '0 calories')
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,272 Member
    Well anything can have zero calories if zero means under 5 and serving sizes are as small as you want them to be and you get 146 servings per container.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,207 Member
    Yeah 0 and none have never been considered equal in labeling. Shout out to the food industrial complex. Cheers
  • paints5555
    paints5555 Posts: 1,233 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Well anything can have zero calories if zero means under 5 and serving sizes are as small as you want them to be and you get 146 servings per container.

    Food companies can't just make up a serving size in the US. FDA specifies what a serving size is for different product categories. So unless you have a very small single serving container that is less than the official serving size, you can't just label a product with a smaller serving size.

    The US label above does not make sense if it is the same product. With a 3.1g serving size (which is supposed to be rounded to the nearest 0.5g if < 5g in the US) the nutrition values are supposed to be calculated the same way in Canada and the US although sometimes the numbers are rounded differently. The label pictured is the old US label format and only the new format is supposed to be used after Jan 1, 2020. It is also missing the common household measure (teaspoons in this case) which is a required element of the label.
  • PAPYRUS3
    PAPYRUS3 Posts: 13,259 Member
    edited March 2023
    paints5555 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Well anything can have zero calories if zero means under 5 and serving sizes are as small as you want them to be and you get 146 servings per container.

    Food companies can't just make up a serving size in the US. FDA specifies what a serving size is for different product categories. So unless you have a very small single serving container that is less than the official serving size, you can't just label a product with a smaller serving size.

    The US label above does not make sense if it is the same product. With a 3.1g serving size (which is supposed to be rounded to the nearest 0.5g if < 5g in the US) the nutrition values are supposed to be calculated the same way in Canada and the US although sometimes the numbers are rounded differently. The label pictured is the old US label format and only the new format is supposed to be used after Jan 1, 2020. It is also missing the common household measure (teaspoons in this case) which is a required element of the label.

    That's interesting. I bought the product last year on Amazon. I guess this label wasn't updated. 🤷🏼‍♀️

Categories