Blue Diamond Almonds Calorie Alert

Never trust a corporation unless you have a reason to trust them. Why? Because their main goal is to make money no matter what. I don't think I need to drive that point home. It's just completely obvious that much of the nutritional information isn't accurate or is just guessing especially out and about at restaurants and fast food places. Even products on the shelves at the super market may have this problem.

Not that long ago some I saw the article listed below my post about Taco Bell's beef only containing 35% beef and they are getting sued over it. No one is on the side of the consumer because that might mean someone loses their job. And this is pretty much across the board for our fair nation on a variety of subjects. If you believe what you're being told by 'most' places I have some prime real-estate I'd like to sell you. (Swampland)

Personally, I think it's funny that anyone ever trusted these people in the first place. Let's just call it conflict of interest. I think if you pry back the wall and look inside the places that make food (I never eat at Taco Bell anyway) and actually see inside the kitchens and also see the REAL numbers adding up when we eat out, we'd go back to our old ways a few decades ago of holding our dollars a little more closely.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1350494/Taco-Bell-beef-contains-35-meat-lawsuit-claims.html

I just want to point out that the Taco Bell lawsuit was dropped after about 2 months because a review of the facts showed that it had no merit, and the claim of "only 35% meat" was completely fictitious and invented by the plaintiffs, and the law firm that filed the suit filed it without actually checking the facts first (they assumed that Taco Bell would just settle to avoid publicity.) After 3rd party testing proved it's falsehood, the firm withdrew the suit.

Also, for the OP. Nutrition labels are an average of a representative sample based on serving weight. The "count" they offer is just an estimate based on approximate size of an individual piece, that's why it says "about x pieces." To be honest, 2 almonds that weight exactly the same could have slightly different nutritional totals. None of this is an exact science.

Thanks for the info, very useful!

Must be the flavor coatings doing that. I get plain, unsalted, roasted almonds in bulk and always get 19-21 for the 20g packs I portion out for myself.

That totally just ruined my Friday...

Nuts are good all the way around. Slignt over runs or under runs on small servings are not a concern too me. For the discerning cal tracker I understand the need to get it right and the scale is the way to go. Though there is something to be said for accuracy there too. Now you got me thinking I need to get a set of calibration weights for my scale. Man, I think I am going nuts here..

Thanks for sharing that info. I was unaware of the results of the lawsuit. I didn't even realize a lawsuit had been filed. But it's not like I was going to Taco Bell prior to this finding anyway. I try to avoid fast food if I can. But people are certainly welcome to like what they like I always say. (Probably like saying I don't drink soda pop but you can have all you want.)

What I did hear about that incident was something about tests performed with a specific finding but I didn't know who conducted it or when, if at all. I was told when I was a kid that McDonald's used soy in their meat. At the time it didn't seem to matter one way or the other but I was a kid then.

As for averages based on weight I guess that's the best one can do is get an overall approximation.




[/quote]
I just want to point out that the Taco Bell lawsuit was dropped after about 2 months because a review of the facts showed that it had no merit, and the claim of "only 35% meat" was completely fictitious and invented by the plaintiffs, and the law firm that filed the suit filed it without actually checking the facts first (they assumed that Taco Bell would just settle to avoid publicity.) After 3rd party testing proved it's falsehood, the firm withdrew the suit.

Also, for the OP. Nutrition labels are an average of a representative sample based on serving weight. The "count" they offer is just an estimate based on approximate size of an individual piece, that's why it says "about x pieces." To be honest, 2 almonds that weight exactly the same could have slightly different nutritional totals. None of this is an exact science.
[/quote]

It is not just the almonds....every packaged food does this. If they test sample the products for weight and they come up short of what the package says they get fined big time. They are allowed a +20% difference going over though without a fine! Yes it throws us off if we are trying to watch what we eat, but it costs less in the long run to overfill the package a little than to keep paying the fines. That is one of the reasons I usually don't buy the "100 cal" packs of anything, you go over on cals without thinking about it, and you also pay more for the extra packaging.

This. The companies are allowed a variance, as frustrating as it is. Measure and weigh everything yourself to be sure you are eating the number of servings you think you are eating

I'm going home to weigh my nuts...

HA HA HA!!!

i second that... hahahahaha