Bar scan VS food label discrepancy

Options
jtkatch
jtkatch Posts: 186 Member
in Food and Nutrition
What do you do when there is a huge difference between the bar scan and food label for its nutritional values?
Ginger simulated chicken by Paradis Vegetarian for example:

MFP Per 100g
Cal 170
Fat 4
Carbs 10

Label
Cal 37
Fat 1
Carbs 2.5

Help anyone? Which is correct which do I use?

Replies

  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    Options
    The label... The barscan is not always 100% correct. Sometimes the food company updates its recipe.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    Is one per serving and the other per package?

    Although still the calories would be off because 37 x 4 is 148.

    Otherwise, it looks like the bottom set of numbers is just 1/4 of the label. PLEASE NOTE: I made the assumption you pulled from the actual label/scan of what you are eating, but I see there is MFP in there now, which is neither a label nor a scan--it is best to rely on the actual label if you have it as MFP entries can be old and outdated. And also be sure you are comparing like quantities, and do the math if needed.
  • powered85
    powered85 Posts: 297 Member
    Options
    I always use the label
  • neldabg
    neldabg Posts: 1,452 Member
    edited January 2017
    Options
    I go by label unless it's for unaltered raw or whole foods (i.e chicken, fish, potatoes, etc). MFP entries are created by users, so they may incorrectly log foods or change calories based off of personal alterations to the food. You can also check the food's label online to verify that the label was not misprinted.
  • Ready2Rock206
    Ready2Rock206 Posts: 9,488 Member
    Options
    Always use the label over any other random entry.
  • murp4069
    murp4069 Posts: 494 Member
    Options
    Use the label. I find incorrect entries in the database all the time.
  • jtkatch
    jtkatch Posts: 186 Member
    Options
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    Is one per serving and the other per package?

    Although still the calories would be off because 37 x 4 is 148.

    Otherwise, it looks like the bottom set of numbers is just 1/4 of the label. PLEASE NOTE: I made the assumption you pulled from the actual label/scan of what you are eating, but I see there is MFP in there now, which is neither a label nor a scan--it is best to rely on the actual label if you have it as MFP entries can be old and outdated. And also be sure you are comparing like quantities, and do the math if needed.

    Great insight. I took the info off the package and then scanned the bar code on the same package. What confuses me is that a lot of their other product are all around the higher calorie and carb values. This one seemed so low! Both values (MFP and label ) were for 100g not entire package. I did email the company and waiting to hear from them.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    The label of course...
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    Options
    jtkatch wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    Is one per serving and the other per package?

    Although still the calories would be off because 37 x 4 is 148.

    Otherwise, it looks like the bottom set of numbers is just 1/4 of the label. PLEASE NOTE: I made the assumption you pulled from the actual label/scan of what you are eating, but I see there is MFP in there now, which is neither a label nor a scan--it is best to rely on the actual label if you have it as MFP entries can be old and outdated. And also be sure you are comparing like quantities, and do the math if needed.

    Great insight. I took the info off the package and then scanned the bar code on the same package. What confuses me is that a lot of their other product are all around the higher calorie and carb values. This one seemed so low! Both values (MFP and label ) were for 100g not entire package. I did email the company and waiting to hear from them.

    Yeah that seems really squirrelly. Let us know how it goes.

Categories