[SamBam]

The conclusion of the article seems to be related to the general rule that if, say, a box of nails advertises 1000 nails, the manufacturer will have set the actual average to be higher than 1000 nails so that some large majority of buyers will always have at least 1000 nails in the box. (I seem to recall an A-Level stats question on my exam asking what the average should be, to ensure that 95% of buyers received at least 1000 nails.)

Again the statement on the box is not a statement of reality, but a contract that the buyer should be (almost) guaranteed of getting at least 1000 nails.

If I recall correctly, calorie values on nutrition boxes are the same, at least in the US: a 100 calorie snack bag will have at least 100 calories, because the FDA mandates that the seller should be at minimum providing what it claims.

[NullPrefix]

>If I recall correctly, calorie values on nutrition boxes are the same, at least in the US: a 100 calorie snack bag will have at least 100 calories, because the FDA mandates that the seller should be at minimum providing what it claims.

Check out our new BigMac Zero. At least zero calories.

[SamBam]

The FDA definitely has requirements for anything advertising "zero calories," "no calories," "reduced calories" etc: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfr...

As for the "minimum calories," I've searched and either I'm out of date or was never correct: it seems like the FDA used to have a "80/120 rule": "beneficial nutrients" (vitamin, mineral, protein, total carbohydrate, etc.) must be at least 80% of the label value and "nutrients to limit" (calories, sugars, fats, etc.) must no greater than 120% of the label value. So calories could theoretically be lower than advertised, but not significantly higher.

The FDA seems to no longer have this rule, but calories is still on the "nutrients to limit" side, so the FDA would be mandating maximums, not minimums. My mistake.

[tspiteri]

Calories should not be considered as just "a nutrient to limit" in such a way that the number is only a maximum. I sometimes used to look at the energy value to choose a ready meal that had at least enough energy so that I would not remain hungry after eating; providing significantly less energy would leave me hungry.

[ben_w]

You jest, but TicTacs are allowed to be labelled “sugar free” despite being 91.3% sugar because, to quote, “the amount of sugar per serving (1 mint) is less than 0.5 grams, FDA labeling requirements permit the Nutrition Facts to state that there are 0 grams of sugar per serving“ - https://www.tictacusa.com/en/faq

[zerocrates]

You could easily notice this same thing in the early days of trans fat removal from product: it was common to see labels and nutrition panels touting "0g trans fats" but have partially hydrogenated oils pretty high up the ingredients list: again mostly on the back of a small serving size. I suppose it's still around in some product categories.

I don't recall ever seeing Tic Tacs actually claim "sugar free," though. "Zero grams" is allowed and most people read it the same way, while "sugar free" actually has some more requirements to be able to use.

[benj111]

So Nutrition facts can round to the nearest gram despite allowing servings to be less than a gram? What a well thought out policy.

Ps I thought the US used imperial measures, why are grams getting used?

[bluGill]

US is a mix of measures. Imperial is allowed, but there are only a few places where it is required. Metric is in fact very common - but only for measures not in day to day use (that is intentionally contradictory have fun figuring it out)

[benj111]

In Europe theres regulations over labelling etc.

In the UK if you buy a 'pint' of milk it will still be labelled 0.568 litres.

Presumably there are some rules in the US also, or labels could just use some obscure measures that hide what a product contains.

[vinay427]

Yes, there are definitely rules. Virtually every product on store shelves in the US seems to be labeled with metric or imperial units depending on what is more convenient or less obscure to the public, though sizes for many products are the same across the oceans which can make for weird numbers for everyone.

Labeling definitely isn't always imperial in the US, and it isn't always metric in many European countries. Regulations tend to do a good job of avoiding units that are obscure in that they're rarely used for the specific purpose in question or would have clumsy numbers like the pint to liters conversion you noted.

e.g. A common PET bottle size in the US and elsewhere is 0.5L, which in the US is labeled as "0.5L"/"500mL" usually along with the, in my opinion, somewhat pointless "16.9 fl oz". Meanwhile, a 2L PET bottle is also common in the US and is labeled (and known by virtually everyone) as "2L".

[NeedMoreTea]

lol. I do love the way so many foods come up with a "serving" that almost no human customer has ever duplicated.

[pbhjpbhj]

That's bad, but just because they're allowed doesn't mean they should do it.

[devy]

> the general rule that if, say, a box of nails advertises 1000 nails, the manufacturer will have set the actual average to be higher than 1000 nails so that some large majority of buyers will always have at least 1000 nails in the box.

This is actually not a good analogy. These days nails are mass produced and quality controls are good to ensure each has the same rough shape and weight +/- by a few percentage points. And to ensure a quantity for a box is actually ensuring the weight - much easier to control.

[theoh]

"Overs and unders" are still a thing in manufacturing. Up to 10% either way.

e.g. https://support.discmakers.com/hc/en-us/articles/209954927-M...

https://www.lumi.com/blog/explaining-overs-unders

http://www.admorefolders.com/overunder.html

[acheron]

This is the reason for the "bakers' dozen". Bakers were at one time required to sell a minimum amount by weight in a dozen, and so would throw in one extra item to ensure the minimum was there.

Ah, here it's on Wikipedia:

"In the United Kingdom when selling certain goods, bakers were obliged to sell goods by the dozen at a specific weight or quality (or a specific average weight). During this time, bakers who sold a dozen units that failed to meet this requirement could be penalized with a fine. Therefore to avoid risking this penalty, some bakers included an extra unit to be sure the minimum weight was met"