• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life. But then manufacturers play games with serving size so it’s no more realistic than a flat 100g, so I’ll pick the more honest choice

    • lime!@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      6 days ago

      100g maps directly to percentages. 3.5g sugar per serving, 1 serving is ⅓ cup -> ??% sugar per unit weight. 9g sugar per 100g -> 9% per unit weight. makes it possible to actually calculate nutrient intake in your head.

    • Schmeckinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 days ago

      In Germany the nutrients per 100g are mandatory, but most of the time there is nutrients per serving on there too.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 days ago

        A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next?

    • Manjushri@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 days ago

      I used to think this was a bad idea because while objective numbers are great, it can be difficult to apply it to real life.

      If you aren’t going to measure how much you’re eating, then neither form of label matters.