FDA gives a 20% leeway for accuracy on nutrition labels.

DanielJReilly

Just a heads up to let everyone know to use caution if they, like me, sometimes count daily available calories down to 0. You know if they get a 20% leeway most food manufacturers are going to use it to their advantage and under report the calories in their products.

Here's a video about a guy in New York who had some of his favorite foods tested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective.html?smid=fb-share&_r=2&

Nice to know that Subway sandwich shops are accurate. I'm going to go there more often because of their honesty. Plus, their fresh baked multigrain bread and sandwiches are pretty good.

yarwell

Just a heads up to let everyone know to use caution if they, like me, sometimes count daily available calories down to 0. You know if they get a 20% leeway most food manufacturers are going to use it to their advantage and under report the calories in their products.

Really ? I would use it to give yo 19.9% less food than it said on the label.

dopeysmelly

Just a heads up to let everyone know to use caution if they, like me, sometimes count daily available calories down to 0. You know if they get a 20% leeway most food manufacturers are going to use it to their advantage and under report the calories in their products.

Here's a video about a guy in New York who had some of his favorite foods tested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective.html?smid=fb-share&_r=2&

Nice to know that Subway sandwich shops are accurate. I'm going to go there more often because of their honesty. Plus, their fresh baked multigrain bread and sandwiches are pretty good.

Wow! Thanks for this. I figured there was a margin of error, but 20% is not a margin of error IMO, it's a margin negotiated between the food industry lobby and the USDA..

pbbagel

But I guess you don't have to worry about this too much if you eat mostly non-commercial foods? Or more natural foods?
For example, things like fruit and vegetables should always have a similar amount of calories, right? And maybe things like rice, pasta, meat, etc.?

Meerataila

Just a heads up to let everyone know to use caution if they, like me, sometimes count daily available calories down to 0. You know if they get a 20% leeway most food manufacturers are going to use it to their advantage and under report the calories in their products.

Here's a video about a guy in New York who had some of his favorite foods tested.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective.html?smid=fb-share&_r=2&

Nice to know that Subway sandwich shops are accurate. I'm going to go there more often because of their honesty. Plus, their fresh baked multigrain bread and sandwiches are pretty good.

Wow! Thanks for this. I figured there was a margin of error, but 20% is not a margin of error IMO, it's a margin negotiated between the food industry lobby and the USDA..

This. I thought they were planning on tightening up that margin, but maybe it got canned already. Weigh and measure everything, trust no label, and cook from scratch as much as possible. That last one will put a hurting on the packaged food industry, too.

sakuya3834

Always weight prepackaged solid foods. For example, a slice of bread. Weigh it, don't just assume it's "x" amount of grams because the package says so. Of course this gets complicated if there are various components or its a restaurant meal (or something else potentially complicated) but the more foods you do this with the more accurate your logs will be.

basicbaby

I kinda knew this, but I didn't know it was like 20%, thats alot. Actually, that is just inacurate and kinda alot BS, noone else gets that kind of leeway! Just think if I eat all those food and I have 5% of my calories leftover, but I ate food all that day that was 20% over, I just BLEW my calories way out of the water. *cries*

I usually do inflation anyways, but not 20%. Guess its a good thing I set my goal at 1500 and not 2000. >.>

No_Finish_Line

i think there are two things to remember

- no food is product is going to be 100% consistent. one snickers bar might way slightly more then the other, get an extra peanut, etc. its always an estimate. perhaps a calorie range would be a better idea.

- although 20% is a lot, perhaps a take away is that its not as important to be nearly 100% accurate as you might think.

Jess__I__Can

The 20% difference is actually referring to what restaraunts say is in their food.

And its not so much that they allow 20% and above that they dont allow. Its that they take these companies at their word, and in one study it was shown to be up to 20% more than what was listed.

kimny72

The 20% difference is actually referring to what restaraunts say is in their food.

And its not so much that they allow 20% and above that they dont allow. Its that they take these companies at their word, and in one study it was shown to be up to 20% more than what was listed.

^This.
There is no official leeway. It's just that the FDA doesn't have the time, resources, and/or inclination to actually test the figures restaurants are claiming. In this little experiment, the guy bought 5 typical food items from local restaurants and lab tested them. He found he would have eaten 550 more calories than he was told he would if he had eaten all 5. It was like a muffin from a local muffin shop, something from Subway, that sort of thing. Not packaged grocery store items. Hopefully those are a little bit closer to the truth calorie wise!

No_Finish_Line

ahhh, important distinction. yay for those who actually read lol

FIT_Goat

But I guess you don't have to worry about this too much if you eat mostly non-commercial foods? Or more natural foods?
For example, things like fruit and vegetables should always have a similar amount of calories, right? And maybe things like rice, pasta, meat, etc.?

Actually, it's just as bad or worse for natural foods. The nutrition facts represent an average for that food based on certain (often unstated) assumptions about the food items.

When it comes down to it, every measurement is an estimate.

Jess__I__Can

When it comes down to it, every measurement is an estimate.

While this is true, it may not be accurate to say that everything is up to 20% off.

Branstin

Many of the nutrition labels are based on diet amounts of 2000 or 2500 calories. If you are not consuming these amounts then your numbers are going to be off anyway.

Jess__I__Can

Many of the nutrition labels are based on diet amounts of 2000 or 2500 calories. If you are not consuming these amounts then your numbers are going to be off anyway.

The calories contained in an item do not change based on the consumer's caloric needs.

Jess__I__Can

Here's a fun fact:

... a Harvard professor created a buzz when she spoke out about the shortcomings of the 100+ year old formula used to determine the calorie values many people rely upon. Turns out, based on further study, several foods actually contain less, because some components don’t get digested. Incomplete digestion means that rather than being absorbed into the body, where calories have to be burned, used, or stored, some simply travel through your digestive system, to become excreted as waste. This type of analysis led to the recent insight that almonds supply about 30% fewer calories than the label states...

So just as some items may be higher, some may be lower.

SueInAz

Here's a fun fact:

... a Harvard professor created a buzz when she spoke out about the shortcomings of the 100+ year old formula used to determine the calorie values many people rely upon. Turns out, based on further study, several foods actually contain less, because some components don’t get digested. Incomplete digestion means that rather than being absorbed into the body, where calories have to be burned, used, or stored, some simply travel through your digestive system, to become excreted as waste. This type of analysis led to the recent insight that almonds supply about 30% fewer calories than the label states...

So just as some items may be higher, some may be lower.

This is also true of foods once you cook them. If you're using MFP and choosing "Broccoli, raw" but are actually steaming said broccoli, you're removing some of the calories during the process.

I always inwardly chuckle when people are posting in here on having to be absolutely accurate when entering calorie amounts. There is no "absolute" when it comes to counting calories; everything about it is an estimate. HRMs give an estimate of calories burned, food entries are an estimate as well. All we can do is track as best we can and hope it all washes out in the end.

FIT_Goat

When it comes down to it, every measurement is an estimate.

While this is true, it may not be accurate to say that everything is up to 20% off.

It certainly can't hurt to assume wide margins of error. Just like scale weight, there are just too many variables we can't measure to be absolutely certain of any specific value. That said, the long term averages (of both calories and scale weights) are fairly decent approximations for what the actual values were. If we focus on those, it is easier to make sense of the data. It is why I use the weekly total calories instead of daily, and the weekly sum of my daily weights, when I consider my progress. The error is still there (about 150 calories plus or minus a day and 0.5 kg plus or minus a day) but are much smaller than the typical daily error amounts.

Last week's calorie band is actually +/- 165 calories if I assume a 20% daily error. And I actually use a weighted trend, so error rate for the the change in that is less than a 10th of a kg.

Jess__I__Can

When it comes down to it, every measurement is an estimate.

While this is true, it may not be accurate to say that everything is up to 20% off.

It certainly can't hurt to assume wide margins of error. Just like scale weight, there are just too many variables we can't measure to be absolutely certain of any specific value. Thay said, the long term averages (of both calories and scale weights) are fairly decent approximations for what the actual values were. If we focus on those, it is easier to make sense of the data. It is why I use the weekly total calories instead of daily, and the weekly sum of my daily weights, when I consider my progress. The error is still there (about 150 calories plus or minus a day and 0.5 kg plus or minus a day) but are much smaller than the typical daily error amounts.

I agree its helpful to KNOW there is a margin of error. However, to put a number on it that is not entirely accurate could cause someone to decrease their caloric intake to dangerous levels. I am 5"0' so 1200 isn't necessary unhealthy for me BUT if I was 5"0' and was told my calories are inflated by 20%, I may cut down to the dangerously low 1000 just to account for that inflation.

BTW I am not at 1200, my body doesn't like it and it's not right for me. I'm closer to 1430 and while I know there is some room for error, its certainly better than the 3000-4000 cal (estimated) I was consuming every day.

jnord8729

But I guess you don't have to worry about this too much if you eat mostly non-commercial foods? Or more natural foods?
For example, things like fruit and vegetables should always have a similar amount of calories, right? And maybe things like rice, pasta, meat, etc.?

Actually, it's just as bad or worse for natural foods. The nutrition facts represent an average for that food based on certain (often unstated) assumptions about the food items.

When it comes down to it, every measurement is an estimate.

If anything, completely unprocessed, natural, organic, non-gmo foods are the worst at being an exact nutrient measurement. It's not necessarily a bad thing, just that's how biology works with there are no outside influences.