Nutrition label shenanigans

[vi edit]

The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

 

[Mrvile]

Either way, that isn't bad for canned ravioli. I was always under the impression that it would be worse.

 

[zoiks]

I will swallow your information there, digest it and see what comes out the other end.

 

[sdifox]

what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?

 

[FDF12389]

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

I usually don't eat the package anyway.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

I usually don't eat the package anyway.

I see what you did there. :thumbsup:

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

I usually don't eat the package anyway.

You should. It has more fiber and about the same nutritional content. Plus, it can't taste any worse than the contents.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Either way, that isn't bad for canned ravioli. I was always under the impression that it would be worse.

Worse how? When I buy cheep canned/instant products I want more calories for my money.

 

[Vehemence]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: FDF12389

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

I usually don't eat the package anyway.

I see what you did there. :thumbsup:

Text

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Either way, that isn't bad for canned ravioli. I was always under the impression that it would be worse.

Worse how? When I buy cheep canned/instant products I want more calories for my money.

Then all the more power to you.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: sdifox
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?

Your math = fail

Servings would be 1.64

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: sdifox
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?

Your math = fail

Servings would be 1.64

Or more precisely - ABOUT 2 servings.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: Mrvile
Either way, that isn't bad for canned ravioli. I was always under the impression that it would be worse.

Worse how? When I buy cheep canned/instant products I want more calories for my money.

Then all the more power to you.

I eat ~4000-4500 a day, and the wife is at 2000-2500. I can't afford fresh meats and veggies all day every day. I'd love to eat a ribeye 3 times a day, but the wallet says no.

 

[jiggahertz]

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

410/250 = 1.64 or about 2?

I've weighed cans of tuna to compare to what should be in there and I remember it being off by quite a bit. I hope they include the weight of the water in their estimates or I got jipped.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: jiggahertz

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

410/250 = 1.64 or about 2?

I've weighed cans of tuna to compare to what should be in there and I remember it being off by quite a bit. I hope they include the weight of the water in their estimates or I got jipped.

They don't expect you to drain the tuna - honestly.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

They don't expect you to drain the tuna - honestly.

eww

 

[Saint Nick]

I :heart: lamp.

 

[darkxshade]

Originally posted by: vi edit
The "nutrition" label on my gormet tub '0 Chef Boyardee says:

Servings per container: About 2
Calories per serving: 250

But right above that is a big bold printing that says "This entire packages has 410 calories".

Soo....about 2 x 250 = 410.



I knew that nutrition labels were allowed to fudge a little bit, but by almost 100 calories? At least it was a bank error in my favor.

Keyword bolded for you

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: sdifox
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?

I guess I find the fact that it's almost 20% off in it's calorie estimates more than a little misleading. So much to the fact that they actually went to the trouble of printing the actual calorie amount seperately.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: sdifox
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?

I guess I find the fact that it's almost 20% off in it's calorie estimates more than a little misleading. So much to the fact that they actually went to the trouble of printing the actual calorie amount seperately.

I'm just surprised you read the label at all. I mean, how many people read the nutrition label on Twinkies or HoHo's. Let the dead pasta substitute lay and spend your time repenting for your gastronomic sins.

 

[torpid]

What's the serving size and the total volume of the can?

 

[Mr Pickles]

Originally posted by: MagnusTheBrewer

Originally posted by: vi edit

Originally posted by: sdifox
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?

I guess I find the fact that it's almost 20% off in it's calorie estimates more than a little misleading. So much to the fact that they actually went to the trouble of printing the actual calorie amount seperately.

I'm just surprised you read the label at all. I mean, how many people read the nutrition label on Twinkies or HoHo's. Let the dead pasta substitute lay and spend your time repenting for your gastronomic sins.

Don't compare The Chef to Twinkies and Ho Hos!

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: torpid
What's the serving size and the total volume of the can?

SS: 1 cup, 249g
Net volume: 411g

 

[dullard]

I'm not too bothered by the "About 2" part of the label. Everything is accurately labeled. You get about 410 Calories in the can. You get the amount of weight in the can (~411 grams). You get the listed weight per serving (~249 grams). You just get a bit fewer servings in that can than you thought. Notice how you could have just solved the problem by looking at weight and not calories.

What does bother me is the fact that they can round to the nearest 10 (up or down as they choose). A product that is 400.1 calories can round up to 410 or down to 400 as they wish. For nutrition information they round as well up or down as they please (they'll round up the nutrients and down the fat). Plus, they can have a ~10% natural variance. Plus, anything 1 gram or less can be listed as not being there.

So an item with typically 2.2 grams of fat can be legally stated to have 1.98 grams (within the 10% natural variance). Then round down to 1 gram. Then, since it is 1 gram or less, claim it is fat free. I don't know if any company would do that (it risks going outside the guidelines and a big mess on their hands), but it is possible.

Note: I may be a bit off, the natural variance may be 20% instead of 10%, I forget.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: dullard

So an item with typically 2.2 grams of fat can be legally stated to have 1.98 grams (within the 10% natural variance). Then round down to 1 gram. Then, since it is 1 gram or less, claim it is fat free. I don't know if any company would do that (it risks going outside the guidelines and a big mess on their hands), but it is possible.

Note: I may be a bit off, the natural variance may be 20% instead of 10%, I forget.

my favorite is "no trans fat!" on the front of the box, and "partially hydrogenated soybean oil" on the back.