If I’m making a sandwich, I’m using 2 pieces of bread, not 100 grams. Having the nutrition information denominated in slices simplifies calculating how many calories/macros/etc. I am eating.
In Europe, it is really bad with snacks. You can buy a pack of individually-wrapped chocolates, and the nutrition label will helpfully tell you there is 500 billion calories in 100g. Thankfully, I am not looking to eat a quarter pound of chocolate in one sitting, but I would be interested in knowing (without getting a scale and doing the math) on what one of the chocolates contains.
Serving sizes are imperfect, and in general American food is trash nutrition-wise, but the labeling standards are quite good. My biggest complaint is the loophole allowing 0.5g and less of sugar/trans fat/etc to be reported as 0g - not anything to do with the serving size.
To me it doesn’t matter if it’s directly relevant when I’m trying to compare one product in the store to another one.
If one brand says two slices but its a weird shape and the other has slightly larger slices in a normal shape I can’t tell which one has more calories.
I think they should always have three categories, package size, serving size, and 100g
It’s better for comparing two chocolates against each other. Besides, 100g is a standard bar of chocolate.
It will also have the full weight of the product with nutritional information. So dividing by no. of pieces should be easy.
Because 100 grams isn’t relevant for many foods.
If I’m making a sandwich, I’m using 2 pieces of bread, not 100 grams. Having the nutrition information denominated in slices simplifies calculating how many calories/macros/etc. I am eating.
In Europe, it is really bad with snacks. You can buy a pack of individually-wrapped chocolates, and the nutrition label will helpfully tell you there is 500 billion calories in 100g. Thankfully, I am not looking to eat a quarter pound of chocolate in one sitting, but I would be interested in knowing (without getting a scale and doing the math) on what one of the chocolates contains.
Serving sizes are imperfect, and in general American food is trash nutrition-wise, but the labeling standards are quite good. My biggest complaint is the loophole allowing 0.5g and less of sugar/trans fat/etc to be reported as 0g - not anything to do with the serving size.
To me it doesn’t matter if it’s directly relevant when I’m trying to compare one product in the store to another one.
If one brand says two slices but its a weird shape and the other has slightly larger slices in a normal shape I can’t tell which one has more calories.
I think they should always have three categories, package size, serving size, and 100g
In europe you will mostly see beside the 100g a “per portion” or “per piece”
The orange one is per rusk, the blue one is per 100g
Some products may not have it i think but it never happened to me to not find it
It’s better for comparing two chocolates against each other. Besides, 100g is a standard bar of chocolate. It will also have the full weight of the product with nutritional information. So dividing by no. of pieces should be easy.
deleted by creator
All of our food labeling has the metric equivalent right next to the imperial units.