Birdseye Steamfresh Calorie Discrepancies?

Options
brooke88z
brooke88z Posts: 23 Member
edited June 2017 in Food and Nutrition
Recently Birdseye came out with new packaging for their Steamfresh line. Curiously, I noticed the brown rice mixes I normally buy suddenly jumped in calories.

Corn/Carrots/Peas before packaging change (Based on the 177g serving size, 283.5g = 304 calories):
olxhjitgs5zi.png

Corn/Carrots/Peas after packaging change (283.5g = 410 calories):
bbk9gxwk5boy.png

I don't have good pictures, but the Broccoli/Carrots mix is now 381 calories per 283.5g package, whereas before it was 302 calories.

So I wondered if there is a difference for just plain brown rice. There certainly is.

Brown rice before packaging change (Based on the 136g serving size, 283.5g = 313 calories):
t2csg6raqkim.png

Brown rice after packaging change (283.5g = 496 calories):
zakzud5nr8v4.png

How does frozen brown rice suddenly contain 180 more calories per bag? Were the old calorie counts completely off? At any rate, I am rather disappointed. The new ones with the high calories don't seem any more filling than the old ones, at least to me

FYI, this is what the front of the brown rice packaging looks like, before and after:

Old Packaging:
i3pgemezife7.png

New Packaging:
yolu9k7fx4eh.png

(Pictures of old brown rice package came from https://www.meijer.com/product/grocery/frozen/birds-eye-steamfresh-brown-rice-10-oz-bag/t1/t1-865/t2/t2-9975/1450001280.uts)

Replies

  • ElizabethHanrahan
    ElizabethHanrahan Posts: 102 Member
    Options
    When they changed the labeling, They also changed the serving sizes. This has increased (or decreased) the calorie counts. The new labels have been adjusted to reflect the way most people eat the product, usually the whole container not just half or a quarter. Who really drinks only half a can of pop?
  • taziarj
    taziarj Posts: 243 Member
    Options
    ElizabethHanrahan wrote: »
    When they changed the labeling, They also changed the serving sizes. This has increased (or decreased) the calorie counts. The new labels have been adjusted to reflect the way most people eat the product, usually the whole container not just half or a quarter. Who really drinks only half a can of pop?

    The OP adjusted the calorie counts based on the serving size. So they are comparing apples to apples. I can't explain the difference.
  • Tried30UserNames
    Tried30UserNames Posts: 561 Member
    Options
    In the mix, I'd think they might have changed the ratio of rice/vegetables in the package. As for the rice alone, I have no explanation.
  • hararayne
    hararayne Posts: 261 Member
    Options
    it could be that for the veggie one, they have started putting more rice in. But it makes no sense that the plain rice would change so drastically unless they were underestimating very poorly. They probably got dinged by the fda and updated their packaging
  • brooke88z
    brooke88z Posts: 23 Member
    Options
    Because of the difference in the plain rice, I am thinking the calorie counts were off on all of them. I also didn't notice a difference in taste/composition after the change (although I don't have the hard proof). It's frustrating to think I was consuming 100 more calories a day than I realized, and that was going on for many months. I am moving on to different brands now.
  • Derf_Smeggle
    Derf_Smeggle Posts: 611 Member
    Options
    I saw this thread earlier today and a had a couple thoughts, but no time to post.

    1. Nutritional labeling is allowed by the FDA a margin of error. Guess which way they error on... Possibly on review they were violating the error allowance.

    2. To my mind, it is more likely that some processes were changed, or reviewed, and the amount of water weight was reduced making the foods more dense per gram. This would be especially true of the rice.

    3. Lastly, they may have started using a different type of [food item]. Again best example might be long grain versus short grain rice, or species of rice. Not as sure on the vegetables with this guess.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    Options
    Derf_Smeggle wrote: »
    I saw this thread earlier today and a had a couple thoughts, but no time to post.

    1. Nutritional labeling is allowed by the FDA a margin of error. Guess which way they error on... Possibly on review they were violating the error allowance.

    2. To my mind, it is more likely that some processes were changed, or reviewed, and the amount of water weight was reduced making the foods more dense per gram. This would be especially true of the rice.

    3. Lastly, they may have started using a different type of [food item]. Again best example might be long grain versus short grain rice, or species of rice. Not as sure on the vegetables with this guess    .

    These were my thoughts...hopefully they weren't that wrong with the earlier information...
  • Derf_Smeggle
    Derf_Smeggle Posts: 611 Member
    Options
    Did a little follow up on the FDA labeling criteria. There are 2 guidelines collectively referred to as the 80/120 rules.

    The 80% rule
    ...the FDA requires that the item “must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.” So a label that states that an item has 6 mg of vitamin C in it is only required to have 4.8 mg or more of vitamin C in it.

    The 120% rule
    ...Similar rules apply to calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. With these items, “the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less,” according to regulations. So, if an analysis found that the product had 21 grams of fat in it even though the label stated that it had 18, the product would still be in compliance with FDA regulations because that ratio is below the 120% threshold.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    edited July 2017
    Options
    @dwestin - found it for you
  • HeidiCooksSupper
    HeidiCooksSupper Posts: 3,831 Member
    Options
    Derf_Smeggle wrote: »
    Did a little follow up on the FDA labeling criteria. There are 2 guidelines collectively referred to as the 80/120 rules.

    The 80% rule
    ...the FDA requires that the item “must be present at 80% or more of the value declared on the label.” So a label that states that an item has 6 mg of vitamin C in it is only required to have 4.8 mg or more of vitamin C in it.

    The 120% rule
    ...Similar rules apply to calories, sugars, total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium. With these items, “the ratio between the amount obtained by laboratory analysis and the amount declared on the product label in the Nutrition Facts panel must be 120% or less,” according to regulations. So, if an analysis found that the product had 21 grams of fat in it even though the label stated that it had 18, the product would still be in compliance with FDA regulations because that ratio is below the 120% threshold.

    Oy! My TDEE is about 130% of my TDEE minus 500 calories. Arguably, if I rely on manufacturer's labels, I could be eating much closer to my TDEE than I thought. All the more reason to use the USDA figures from their database as much as possible.

Categories