F.D.A Allows a 20% Margin of Error on Food Labels.

Wynterbourne

I expect a margin of error at restaurants and I realize that even in an automated system the production and packaging of foods is going to have slight variances, but 20%??? That is not a small margin of error. And then, according to the F.D.A., no one verifies the accuracy of these calorie listings. The system essentially runs on an honor system. Was anyone else already aware of this? Granted, I don't eat a lot of prepackage foods or go out to eat a lot so I'm not really affected that much at all, but for those who do that could be very undermining of their efforts.

http://foodbeast.com/content/2013/02/22/testing-for-accuracy-declared-calories-vs-actual-calories/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/13/opinion/calorie-detective.html?_r=1&

ksuh999

It's fine. As long as you're close to your set calorie count you'll lose weight, as proven by the bojillion people on here that have done so.

cmriverside

Yeah. Really not an exact science here. Weight loss is more about estimates. That's really good news, if you think about it.

kwilliams386

Yeah, that sucks. I just started about a month ago and counting calories can be confusing because of how innacurate things can be. I just assume to try it.. count what is says.. and adjust as needed bepending on how my body reacts. I lost weight the first couple weeks and now it has slowed so I am thinking of trying something new.. lowering my net calories 100-200 and seeing if that helps.

geebusuk

And then you come to working out how many calories you burn!

My general thoughts, which I haven't got around to doing yet is to eat and record a range of foods I typically eat over a typical few weeks, while recording my calories on my motoactv. Take an average of scale readings while trying to balance the net weight change to 0kg.
Eventually I should come up with a figure that says on average if I record 2400kc and burn 2325kc, say - my weight stays the same.

In the end, without rather destructive testing they can't be too sure that those eggs used in the mayonnaise weren't less calorie dense because the chicken was of it's food that week, for instance (or whatever.)

cordianet

It is a bit scary, especially for those following the TDEE-20% approach. Even so, I would think it would be far more likely for calories to be over-reported in prepackaged food. My reasoning is that I doubt most companies actually do calorimeter testing on every product, and I'm almost certain even if the do it, they don't take variance into account. It would be much easier for them to simply figure out what went in to the food and use the existing USDA data to figure the nutritional information. If this is really true, there's also a monetary incentive to over-report product size, instead of under-report. After all, if I sell you a 15 oz portion, but actually give you 14.5 oz one, that discrepancy can add up to a huge savings over time.

Just food for thought.

JoyousRen

Individual foods vary. Two apples of the exact same size and type can have different caloric content based on ripeness and whether it ripened on the tree or not. The FDA kind of has to allow for variances because foods naturally vary. The labels are based on averages just like our calorie goals and burns are. It' all a numbers game.

JenniTheVeggie

eh. I weigh and measure my foods (depending on the food).