How is it that food labelling does not require a column for "what if I eat it all?".How hard is that?
This is a typical example of food labelling, and it shows values for 100g and a 23g "serving" on a packet of crisps that is 95g.
I have an A-level in maths but it even takes me a moment to work out that I just ate 50.35g of carbohydrates.
Seriously, how hard is it to actually state what is in the actual packet you have? Surely that should be a basic requirement?
FFS 23g is not even a nice fraction of 95g. It is obviously intended for me, and 3.13 of my close friends to share...
Since when is 23/95ths not a nice fraction 😅
ReplyDeleteIt's not even vulgar!
DeleteThe serving size is set purely as a result of government pressure to reduce certain content.
ReplyDelete"Hmm, this product has 456% of the allowable salt in? Consumers will get upset if we shrink the pack so we'll just say it's 4.56 servings per pack!"
95g or 100g you've still just eaten more carbs and calories than you should have ;-)
ReplyDeleteThe "serving size" is a total manipulation of the system. I'm technically underweight (BMI < 18) but when I eat oven pizza I'll eat a whole one which is labeleled as two servings.
ReplyDelete