Imagine how we feel in the US being given numbers interchangeably in ounces and pounds. Nothing like dividing random numbers by 16 in your head in the store. Grams would be so much easier for this purpose.
the problem with per 100 g is that some foods are eaten in much smaller quantities, so the “per serving” (if a serving size is accurate) is actually more helpful for knowing how reasonable it is to eat.
I would just like the per 100 g nutrition information in addition to the per serving information.
I think both “per serving” and “per 100g” should be required. Some foods/drinks come with “0g carbs” or “0 calories” in small enough servings, but only because the actual amount is negligible. The problem is that once the serving gets large enough, those things do start to matter, especially for instance carbs for diabetics.
Multiple times I’ve run into a “low carb” or “low sugar” drink that said something like 2 or 3g carbs per serving, and then had 2 or 3 servings per bottle, which ending up raising my blood sugar more than expected. Technically that’s on me for not checking the “per serving” and “servings per container”, and I’ve since learned my lesson, but it’s still annoying.
Add in a “per container” for things that are realistically seen as a single serving, like your drink example.
That way I don’t have to do the ‘per 100g’ figuring and I have a realistic assessment of that small can of soup that’s somehow supposed to be 2 to 3 servings.
You have no idea what you are talking about, pressure cooking kills botulism. You have never canned food before clearly. You are just luck louis pasteur isn’t on this thread.
What my family told me is:
Enough sugar, acidity or long enough heat.
And one can’t be a know-it-all in every profession.
So if you have a reputable source for your claim, I’ll gladly accept it.
Else it’s your word against mine.
21 grams of sugar in a 37 gram serving, so >56% sugar by weight
no wonder it’s delicious 😆
European here. Sorry, but it is so ridiculous that labels don’t just show some standardized “per 100 g” so things are easily compared without math.
Imagine how we feel in the US being given numbers interchangeably in ounces and pounds. Nothing like dividing random numbers by 16 in your head in the store. Grams would be so much easier for this purpose.
I keep a spreadsheet with that information.
Here are the macros for nutella, per 100 g:
the problem with per 100 g is that some foods are eaten in much smaller quantities, so the “per serving” (if a serving size is accurate) is actually more helpful for knowing how reasonable it is to eat.
I would just like the per 100 g nutrition information in addition to the per serving information.
I think both “per serving” and “per 100g” should be required. Some foods/drinks come with “0g carbs” or “0 calories” in small enough servings, but only because the actual amount is negligible. The problem is that once the serving gets large enough, those things do start to matter, especially for instance carbs for diabetics.
Multiple times I’ve run into a “low carb” or “low sugar” drink that said something like 2 or 3g carbs per serving, and then had 2 or 3 servings per bottle, which ending up raising my blood sugar more than expected. Technically that’s on me for not checking the “per serving” and “servings per container”, and I’ve since learned my lesson, but it’s still annoying.
Add in a “per container” for things that are realistically seen as a single serving, like your drink example.
That way I don’t have to do the ‘per 100g’ figuring and I have a realistic assessment of that small can of soup that’s somehow supposed to be 2 to 3 servings.
I completely agree - we need both!
Yeah same opinion here, guess they cant make it easy for people to know what they put in their bodies or they might start caring right?
At 57% sugar, it is no longer a bread spread but a flavored sugar mix
Have you seen how much sugar jam needs to be preserve?
Fruit jam alone is usually 1:2 and at best for certain acidic fruits 1:3
deleted by creator
1 part sugar to 3 part fruit
You don’t need any sugar to preserve, you just need to cook it at 15 lbs of pressure for an hour and a half.
Not how preserves work.
That is how any food works actually. You don’t need sugar to preserve things.
We’ll see when you catch botulism :)
And you’ll probably not make it 100% sterile.
so if cooking it doesn’t kill germs, what exactly do you eat?
You have no idea what you are talking about, pressure cooking kills botulism. You have never canned food before clearly. You are just luck louis pasteur isn’t on this thread.
What my family told me is:
Enough sugar, acidity or long enough heat.
And one can’t be a know-it-all in every profession.
So if you have a reputable source for your claim, I’ll gladly accept it.
Else it’s your word against mine.