Same Product, Higher Calories (I'm looking at you, Doritos!)

Several products I purchase have recently increased in calories and I'm wondering what is going on. These are not product overhauls nor new formulas/weights/serving sizes.

I've been logging Doritos on occasion since 2012 and the nutrition label has stated 140 calories per 28 grams for years. Well, I bought a bag for the Super Bowl and was surprised that classic Nacho Cheese Doritos is now 150 calories per 28 grams. I did a web search and could find no information about this change. For such a large corporation as FritoLay, I would have thought their product calories would be dialed in by now.

I love frozen Amy's Organic products. Two of my go-to staples had a massive jump on the label. The gluten free organic beans and rice frozen burrito went from 240 calories to 300. The broccoli cheddar bake went from 420 to 460.

I know reforms were made recently in the US regarding nutrition labels to reflect normal serving sizes. I see this change most obviously on canned soups, where as they used to say a serving size of 1 Cup (servings per container about 2), labels now show calories per 1 Cup and Total Calories per Can. This change makes sense. However, I'm not sure what is going on when a product suddenly shifts long standing calories.

Does anyone know what explains such changes? Did all products get re-evaluated for calories and nutrition when the nutrition label reforms went through? I'm just an average consumer, I don't know the in's and out's of the FDA or how they evaluate product accuracy. Regardless, I'm double checking products that, for years, I've been able to quickly add from my diary history.

Replies

  • Ingredients, serving size, and weight stayed the same, I compared an old label to a new label (for the Amy’s). Regarding Doritos, 10 calories isn’t much, but it is surprising for such a large corporation in my opinion. Besides, if the formula for Doritos changed, I imagine backlash resembling the New Coke fallout. 😂
  • glassyo
    glassyo Posts: 7,739 Member
    If it's just a few calories, it's most likely they had the foods retested in a lab. The same thing happened with my Hostess snack cakes and donettes. They're all like 10 calories more than they used to be.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    Ingredients, serving size, and weight stayed the same, I compared an old label to a new label (for the Amy’s). Regarding Doritos, 10 calories isn’t much, but it is surprising for such a large corporation in my opinion. Besides, if the formula for Doritos changed, I imagine backlash resembling the New Coke fallout. 😂

    New labeling requirements are out and foods have to be re-tested to comply. Also, while there is no requirement, it is considered a best practice to re-test regularly anyway...my friend has a food company and he tests every three years namely because lab methods change over time. My guess would be that their product was re-tested and the results were different from previous tests.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Ingredients, serving size, and weight stayed the same, I compared an old label to a new label (for the Amy’s). Regarding Doritos, 10 calories isn’t much, but it is surprising for such a large corporation in my opinion. Besides, if the formula for Doritos changed, I imagine backlash resembling the New Coke fallout. 😂



    The recipe could be the same but the ingredients might be coming from different sources.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,865 Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    Ingredients, serving size, and weight stayed the same, I compared an old label to a new label (for the Amy’s). Regarding Doritos, 10 calories isn’t much, but it is surprising for such a large corporation in my opinion. Besides, if the formula for Doritos changed, I imagine backlash resembling the New Coke fallout. 😂



    The recipe could be the same but the ingredients might be coming from different sources.

    Yes, or the ingredients could be the same but formulated differently...more of this, less of that, etc.