• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Nutrition label shenanigans

vi edit

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
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. 🙂

 
Either way, that isn't bad for canned ravioli. I was always under the impression that it would be worse.
 
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?
 
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

I usually don't eat the package anyway.
 
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

I usually don't eat the package anyway.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. :thumbsup:
 
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

I usually don't eat the package anyway.
Click to expand...

You should. It has more fiber and about the same nutritional content. Plus, it can't taste any worse than the contents.
 
Originally posted by: Mrvile
Either way, that isn't bad for canned ravioli. I was always under the impression that it would be worse.
Click to expand...

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

 
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

I usually don't eat the package anyway.
Click to expand...

I see what you did there. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Text
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Then all the more power to you.
 
Originally posted by: sdifox
what part of ABOUT did you not understand? would you like them to print Servings per container: about 2.2?
Click to expand...

Your math = fail 🙂

Servings would be 1.64
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Then all the more power to you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

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.
 
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. 🙂
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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

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.

 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

my favorite is "no trans fat!" on the front of the box, and "partially hydrogenated soybean oil" on the back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top