Thread replies: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: pillar-rock-pink-salmon-166904.jpg (29KB, 200x200px) Image search:
[Google]
29KB, 200x200px
I know that the FDA is allowed a certain amount of leeway in terms of calories on food labels--that is, they may round up or down within a 5 actual calorie range.
But how do you explain SIGNIFICANT rounding? For example, a couple different brands of canned salmon (pic related) I purchase have macronutrients listed that add up to 83 calories, but 90 calories are listed. What gives?
>Calories: 90
>Fat: 3
>Carb: 0g
>Protein: 14g
3 x 9 = 27
14 x 4 =56
56 + 27 = 83
Why are they
a.) legally permitted to round up to the nearest 10th with a 7 calorie difference
b.) Not just rounding down, as most food manufacturers do?
>>
The calories are the only thing subject to rounding. For example:
3.4 x 9 = 30.6
14.4 x 4 = 57.6
30.6 + 57.6 = 88.2 ≈ 90
>>
>>7418754
Ah, good point.
>>
Reminds me of the whole trans fat thing for nutrition labels, where if it has under 0.5 grams of trans fat, it can be labeled as 0 grams. Fucking bullshit.
http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm053479.htm
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp#.VtFGLuYwCec
>You can also spot trans fats by reading ingredient lists and looking for the ingredients referred to as “partially hydrogenated oils.”
>>
>>7418791
Still true of many things.
I learned sugar-free products almost always have sugar in them when I became diabetic.
Thread posts: 5
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1