Number of calories mysteriously changing on nutrition facts

oftheearth
oftheearth Posts: 104 Member
in Food and Nutrition
The other day I was looking at nutrition facts on pre-made hummus at a grocery store. One of the kinds had two different figures for the calories (some of the tubs had 50, some had 60), and nothing else made the tubs dissimilar. No "new look", no change of ingredients or their order... I noticed something similar with Caio Bella blood orange sorbet: for a long time, 60 calories/serving was printed, then suddenly, the label changed to 100, and they have stayed that way. Again, nothing else was different.

What's up with this?

Replies

  • ihateroses
    ihateroses Posts: 893 Member
    Maybe they decided to go with a more realistic serving size?

    Strange though.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    It's not an exact science, and there is an allowable margin of error of (I think it's) 10% on labelling. With sorbet and hummus being processed foods, they also could have changed the incredients.
  • cmwhited6204
    cmwhited6204 Posts: 210 Member
    I saw a show where companies were being busted for having false or lower than numbers for their calories and other catagories. I believe it is an adjustment from having it incorrect to begin with.
  • mfpcopine
    mfpcopine Posts: 3,093 Member
    As other people have said, the ingredients and size of the serving might have changed and by law they're allowed to understate the calories by I think 15%. That's why it's important to keep reading the labels.
  • Helloitsdan
    Helloitsdan Posts: 5,564 Member
    I blame gremlins
  • DJ2120
    DJ2120 Posts: 407 Member
    So funny you brought this up. I purchased Mom's Best Oatmeal 2 weeks ago & it said a serving had 130 calories, I remember this standing out to me because the Quaker oatmeal I normally buy has 150 calories. So I was like hey I save 20 calories with this one! Awesome! LOL! Well, I purchased the same exact one again last night & all of a sudden it says 150 calories. I looked over all the canisters & they were all the same. Maybe the first one I bought had a typo? Strange.
  • oftheearth
    oftheearth Posts: 104 Member
    The serving size on both of these remained the same...

    I figured it was an adjustment for the first figure being a mistake, but at the same time I thought (with the sorbet) a 40% difference was a lot...
  • squirmmonster
    squirmmonster Posts: 98 Member
    It could also be a change in the product they're using. For instance, if they were getting chickpeas from one source, and then that source changed, the caloric content could have gone up. Believe it or not, plants are not all universal.

    To make an example: There were a couple of weeks in my early diet where I lost NO weight. I was eating in-season nectarines, and gradually realized that I was having blood sugar crashes from these things. So I did a little research and learned that, especially with fruit, sugar content can vary WIDELY. In-season fruit that tastes very sweet... guess what! It DOES have a lot of sugar. Not that you shouldn't eat it, but you have to be mindful, it does indeed have more calories. So, maybe the chickpeas they are using now, contain slightly higher starch. Same with the blood oranges.

    Always compare your food with similar items, and if it sounds too good to be true... it probably is.

Categories