For popcorn, I use a food scale! Measuring food makes carb and calorie counting SO MUCH EASIER 
I have gotten a couple of cheap ones over the years from Amazon.
2 Likes
That’s very sneaky! European nutrition labels usually look something like this, including both nutritional values per 100g and per serving.
5 Likes
Only in the US. EU and, even, UK food labels do two things different:
- No rounding. Gee, why can’t Americans understand the decimal point?
- Amounts given per 100g; not the ridiculous “percentage of daily value”; the serving size (still potentially open to the same abuses) and the amount per “100g”; i.e. the percentage (by mass) because all the base amounts are in grammes.
So let’s fix American food labelling. Here’s another one:
Read the food label on an American beer.
Now go to The Bahamas[1] and read the food label on exactly the same American beer. This was pointed out to me by a lady in The Bahamas while I was there on vacation; one of the true learning experiences of my life for which I will forever be grateful. First person who posts pictures showing the difference can buy me a beer (correctly labelled of course.)
Eh, no. That wins the annual assessment prize for most $ added to The Corporate Bottom Line.
If your product contains, shall we say, 0.6g Arsenic per your 138g burger then listing that on the label might be a bit of a problem:
Serving size: 138g:
Thing: grams/serving, %DV
Arsenic: 1 1%
Ah! But our new Intern has come up with a new solution for our product! The 100g serving, the new healthy way to eat our burgers; eat 80% of them then eject the rest into the trash [Employees shall note that this is not permitted in California, huh, so much for all that money we spent on Arnie.] Whatever! Employee of the year:
Serving size: 100g:
Thing: grams/serving. %DV
Arsenic: 0 0%
I used the LD50 figures for a rat (763mg/kg); the figures for humans are not yet available in the US. I assumed a human ways 100kg. I assumed a healthy human only eats 80% of one of our burgers.
1 Like
