Stupid Labeling

I ran across an example of stupid labeling a couple days ago. I was
making brats with kraut, so I grabbed a one-pound can of sauerkraut
from the cupboard. Glancing at the label, I saw it had 3g carb and 1g
fiber, for a net of 2g. Sounded great. Then I looked up, and saw
there were *14* servings per can, a serving being 2 tablespoons.

What the Hell? Who eats two tablespoons of sauerkraut? Are they
assuming that most of it gets used as a condiment on hot dogs? It's
still a low-carb food, obviously; you'd have to eat the whole can at
one meal to exceed the limit on most plans. Still, divisions like
that are annoying and stupid. The same is true of all the mayo brands
that clearly list sugar in the label but claim zero carbs because the
serving size is so small. What if you're making some sort of salad
where you use a cup of it? Obviously it's still not zero carbs, but
what is it? You can't know from the label.

All labels should give the breakdown for the *entire* container. If
they want also to break it down further into some theoretical serving
size, that's fine. Here's why: Because of rounding, that can of kraut
could really have anywhere between 21g and 35g net carbs, if you
assume the per-serving amount is between 1.5 and 2.5. You always lose
accuracy when you multiply rounded numbers. If the can said 33g/can,
on the other hand, you could divide that by any serving size smaller
than a whole can and still be accurate.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

I agree with you!


Aaron Baugher wrote:
:: I ran across an example of stupid labeling a couple days ago. I was
:: making brats with kraut, so I grabbed a one-pound can of sauerkraut
:: from the cupboard. Glancing at the label, I saw it had 3g carb and
:: 1g fiber, for a net of 2g. Sounded great. Then I looked up, and saw
:: there were *14* servings per can, a serving being 2 tablespoons.
::
:: What the Hell? Who eats two tablespoons of sauerkraut? Are they
:: assuming that most of it gets used as a condiment on hot dogs? It's
:: still a low-carb food, obviously; you'd have to eat the whole can at
:: one meal to exceed the limit on most plans. Still, divisions like
:: that are annoying and stupid. The same is true of all the mayo
:: brands that clearly list sugar in the label but claim zero carbs
:: because the serving size is so small. What if you're making some
:: sort of salad where you use a cup of it? Obviously it's still not
:: zero carbs, but what is it? You can't know from the label.
::
:: All labels should give the breakdown for the *entire* container. If
:: they want also to break it down further into some theoretical serving
:: size, that's fine. Here's why: Because of rounding, that can of
:: kraut could really have anywhere between 21g and 35g net carbs, if
:: you assume the per-serving amount is between 1.5 and 2.5. You
:: always lose accuracy when you multiply rounded numbers. If the can
:: said 33g/can, on the other hand, you could divide that by any
:: serving size smaller than a whole can and still be accurate.
::
::
::
:: --
:: Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/
::
:: "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
:: zebras."

On Mar 1, 10:05 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
I agree with you!

Aaron Baugher wrote:

:: I ran across an example of stupid labeling a couple days ago. I was
:: making brats with kraut, so I grabbed a one-pound can of sauerkraut
:: from the cupboard. Glancing at the label, I saw it had 3g carb and
:: 1g fiber, for a net of 2g. Sounded great. Then I looked up, and saw
:: there were *14* servings per can, a serving being 2 tablespoons.
::
:: What the Hell? Who eats two tablespoons of sauerkraut? Are they
:: assuming that most of it gets used as a condiment on hot dogs? It's
:: still a low-carb food, obviously; you'd have to eat the whole can at
:: one meal to exceed the limit on most plans. Still, divisions like
:: that are annoying and stupid. The same is true of all the mayo
:: brands that clearly list sugar in the label but claim zero carbs
:: because the serving size is so small. What if you're making some
:: sort of salad where you use a cup of it? Obviously it's still not
:: zero carbs, but what is it? You can't know from the label.
::
:: All labels should give the breakdown for the *entire* container. If
:: they want also to break it down further into some theoretical serving
:: size, that's fine. Here's why: Because of rounding, that can of
:: kraut could really have anywhere between 21g and 35g net carbs, if
:: you assume the per-serving amount is between 1.5 and 2.5. You
:: always lose accuracy when you multiply rounded numbers. If the can
:: said 33g/can, on the other hand, you could divide that by any
:: serving size smaller than a whole can and still be accurate.
::
::
::
:: --
:: Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/
::
:: "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
:: zebras."


First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs there
are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it would be a
good idea to include the actual total number on the label. For one
thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.

In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious. Saurkraut
should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that high, I would
think it would have to have added sugar.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
wrote:

On Mar 1, 10:05 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
I agree with you!

Aaron Baugher wrote:

:: I ran across an example of stupid labeling a couple days ago. I was
:: making brats with kraut, so I grabbed a one-pound can of sauerkraut
:: from the cupboard. Glancing at the label, I saw it had 3g carb and
:: 1g fiber, for a net of 2g. Sounded great. Then I looked up, and saw
:: there were *14* servings per can, a serving being 2 tablespoons.
::
:: What the Hell? Who eats two tablespoons of sauerkraut? Are they
:: assuming that most of it gets used as a condiment on hot dogs? It's
:: still a low-carb food, obviously; you'd have to eat the whole can at
:: one meal to exceed the limit on most plans. Still, divisions like
:: that are annoying and stupid. The same is true of all the mayo
:: brands that clearly list sugar in the label but claim zero carbs
:: because the serving size is so small. What if you're making some
:: sort of salad where you use a cup of it? Obviously it's still not
:: zero carbs, but what is it? You can't know from the label.
::
:: All labels should give the breakdown for the *entire* container. If
:: they want also to break it down further into some theoretical serving
:: size, that's fine. Here's why: Because of rounding, that can of
:: kraut could really have anywhere between 21g and 35g net carbs, if
:: you assume the per-serving amount is between 1.5 and 2.5. You
:: always lose accuracy when you multiply rounded numbers. If the can
:: said 33g/can, on the other hand, you could divide that by any
:: serving size smaller than a whole can and still be accurate.
::
::
::
:: --
:: Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/
::
:: "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
:: zebras."


First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs there
are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it would be a
good idea to include the actual total number on the label. For one
thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.

In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious. Saurkraut
should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that high, I would
think it would have to have added sugar.


Yeah, you have to watch sauerkraut -- some of it has added sugar. I think
the law should be 100g of material. This would allow comparisons. Today,
it's impossible to compare even the same products sometimes.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
:: On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 11:23:29 -0500,
:: wrote:
::
::: On Mar 1, 10:05 am, "Roger Zoul" wrote:
:::: I agree with you!
::::
:::: Aaron Baugher wrote:
::::
:::::: I ran across an example of stupid labeling a couple days ago. I
:::::: was making brats with kraut, so I grabbed a one-pound can of
:::::: sauerkraut from the cupboard. Glancing at the label, I saw it
:::::: had 3g carb and 1g fiber, for a net of 2g. Sounded great. Then
:::::: I looked up, and saw there were *14* servings per can, a serving
:::::: being 2 tablespoons.
::::::
:::::: What the Hell? Who eats two tablespoons of sauerkraut? Are they
:::::: assuming that most of it gets used as a condiment on hot dogs?
:::::: It's still a low-carb food, obviously; you'd have to eat the
:::::: whole can at one meal to exceed the limit on most plans. Still,
:::::: divisions like that are annoying and stupid. The same is true
:::::: of all the mayo brands that clearly list sugar in the label but
:::::: claim zero carbs because the serving size is so small. What if
:::::: you're making some sort of salad where you use a cup of it?
:::::: Obviously it's still not zero carbs, but what is it? You can't
:::::: know from the label.
::::::
:::::: All labels should give the breakdown for the *entire* container.
:::::: If they want also to break it down further into some theoretical
:::::: serving size, that's fine. Here's why: Because of rounding,
:::::: that can of kraut could really have anywhere between 21g and 35g
:::::: net carbs, if you assume the per-serving amount is between 1.5
:::::: and 2.5. You always lose accuracy when you multiply rounded
:::::: numbers. If the can said 33g/can, on the other hand, you could
:::::: divide that by any serving size smaller than a whole can and
:::::: still be accurate.
::::::
::::::
::::::
:::::: --
:::::: Aaron -- 285/235/200 --http://aaron.baugher.biz/
::::::
:::::: "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
:::::: zebras."
:::
:::
::: First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
::: serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs
::: there are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it
::: would be a good idea to include the actual total number on the
::: label. For one thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.
:::
::: In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious.
::: Saurkraut should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that
::: high, I would think it would have to have added sugar.
:::
::
:: Yeah, you have to watch sauerkraut -- some of it has added sugar. I
:: think the law should be 100g of material. This would allow
:: comparisons. Today, it's impossible to compare even the same
:: products sometimes.
::

Yeah, that's better since you get metric that can be easily compared (as you
say) from item to item without regard to amounts (since they are the same
100g). Yes. The same would work for all other nutrients. And frankly, I
wish they'd just stop rounding whole (keep one digit behind the decimal
point)....it contributes to the dumbing down of everyone and everything.

On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:47:24 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
[cut]
:::
::: First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
::: serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs
::: there are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it
::: would be a good idea to include the actual total number on the
::: label. For one thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.
:::
::: In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious.
::: Saurkraut should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that
::: high, I would think it would have to have added sugar.
:::
::
:: Yeah, you have to watch sauerkraut -- some of it has added sugar. I
:: think the law should be 100g of material. This would allow
:: comparisons. Today, it's impossible to compare even the same
:: products sometimes.
::

Yeah, that's better since you get metric that can be easily compared (as
you
say) from item to item without regard to amounts (since they are the same
100g). Yes. The same would work for all other nutrients. And frankly,
I
wish they'd just stop rounding whole (keep one digit behind the decimal
point)....it contributes to the dumbing down of everyone and everything.




That's true, too.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:47:24 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
[cut]
:::
::: First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
::: serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs
::: there are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it
::: would be a good idea to include the actual total number on the
::: label. For one thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.
:::
::: In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious.
::: Saurkraut should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that
::: high, I would think it would have to have added sugar.
:::
::
:: Yeah, you have to watch sauerkraut -- some of it has added sugar. I
:: think the law should be 100g of material. This would allow
:: comparisons. Today, it's impossible to compare even the same
:: products sometimes.
::

Yeah, that's better since you get metric that can be easily compared
(as you
say) from item to item without regard to amounts (since they are the same
100g). Yes. The same would work for all other nutrients. And
frankly, I
wish they'd just stop rounding whole (keep one digit behind the decimal
point)....it contributes to the dumbing down of everyone and everything.




That's true, too.


It's almost a losing proposition. Partly because we are a NON-Metric nation.

The English system of units for weights and volumes is convoluted and
the relationship between Teaspoons, Table Spoons, Ounces, Pounds, Grains
...... is enough to drive young children out of elementary school
arithmetic classes. It hurts young heads to keep track of this crazy stuff.

Because of the "Convolution of the English System", and a useful desire
to know how much a "Serving" contains of fats, calories, etc... there is
no meaningful and useful "unit of measure" to apply. Sauerkraut - eaten
both as a food serving on a plate and a condiment on other foods raises
the point. Tablespoons vs Ounces. What is the conversion?

Since we aren't Metric, the average Joe and Joann won't be able to do
much with grams. So, the "Serving Size" is about as good as the standard
"unit of measure" can get, in the English system of units.

However, we are wise to keep the incomprehensible system going. It
handicaps the US enough to allow great hope for less privileged nations
to anticipate eventually passing us by because of the intellectual
handicap it imposes. Drives some bright children out of the sciences,
for example.

Learn to enjoy the confusion of weights and measures, We are the last
great industrialized country to maintain such an antiquated and
insensible system.

If we only had Pounds, Shillings, Quid, Pence and that other complex
currency, we could aid less privileged countries to surpass us even more.

Bob in CT wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:47:24 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
[cut]
:::
::: First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
::: serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs
::: there are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it
::: would be a good idea to include the actual total number on the
::: label. For one thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.
:::
::: In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious.
::: Saurkraut should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that
::: high, I would think it would have to have added sugar.
:::
::
:: Yeah, you have to watch sauerkraut -- some of it has added sugar. I
:: think the law should be 100g of material. This would allow
:: comparisons. Today, it's impossible to compare even the same
:: products sometimes.
::

Yeah, that's better since you get metric that can be easily compared
(as you
say) from item to item without regard to amounts (since they are the same
100g). Yes. The same would work for all other nutrients. And
frankly, I
wish they'd just stop rounding whole (keep one digit behind the decimal
point)....it contributes to the dumbing down of everyone and everything.




That's true, too.


It's almost a losing proposition. Partly because we are a NON-Metric nation.

The English system of units for weights and volumes is convoluted and
the relationship between Teaspoons, Table Spoons, Ounces, Pounds, Grains
...... is enough to drive young children out of elementary school
arithmetic classes. It hurts young heads to keep track of this crazy stuff.

Because of the "Convolution of the English System", and a useful desire
to know how much a "Serving" contains of fats, calories, etc... there is
no meaningful and useful "unit of measure" to apply. Sauerkraut - eaten
both as a food serving on a plate and a condiment on other foods raises
the point. Tablespoons vs Ounces. What is the conversion?

Since we aren't Metric, the average Joe and Joann won't be able to do
much with grams. So, the "Serving Size" is about as good as the standard
"unit of measure" can get, in the English system of units.

However, we are wise to keep the incomprehensible system going. It
handicaps the US enough to allow great hope for less privileged nations
to anticipate eventually passing us by because of the intellectual
handicap it imposes. Drives some bright children out of the sciences,
for example.

Learn to enjoy the confusion of weights and measures, We are the last
great industrialized country to maintain such an antiquated and
insensible system.

If we only had Pounds, Shillings, Quid, Pence and that other complex
currency, we could aid less privileged countries to surpass us even more.

The real stupid labels are Pounds, Ounces, Grains, Tablespoons,
Teaspoons, Pints, Quarts, Gallons, Pecks, Bushels, Barrels, .....

On Mar 1, 1:34 pm, Jbuch wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:
On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 12:47:24 -0500, Roger Zoul
wrote:

Bob in CT wrote:
[cut]
:::
::: First thing I do when reading a label is multiply the carbs per
::: serving by the servings per can to get an idea of how many carbs
::: there are in the quantity I'm holding in my hand. I agree, it
::: would be a good idea to include the actual total number on the
::: label. For one thing, it would eliminate the rounding uncertainty.
:::
::: In the case of sauerkraut, that product sounds suspicious.
::: Saurkraut should just be cabbage, vinegar, salt. To be that
::: high, I would think it would have to have added sugar.
:::
::
:: Yeah, you have to watch sauerkraut -- some of it has added sugar. I
:: think the law should be 100g of material. This would allow
:: comparisons. Today, it's impossible to compare even the same
:: products sometimes.
::

Yeah, that's better since you get metric that can be easily compared
(as you
say) from item to item without regard to amounts (since they are the same
100g). Yes. The same would work for all other nutrients. And
frankly, I
wish they'd just stop rounding whole (keep one digit behind the decimal
point)....it contributes to the dumbing down of everyone and everything.

That's true, too.

It's almost a losing proposition. Partly because we are a NON-Metric nation.

The English system of units for weights and volumes is convoluted and
the relationship between Teaspoons, Table Spoons, Ounces, Pounds, Grains
...... is enough to drive young children out of elementary school
arithmetic classes. It hurts young heads to keep track of this crazy stuff.

Because of the "Convolution of the English System", and a useful desire
to know how much a "Serving" contains of fats, calories, etc... there is
no meaningful and useful "unit of measure" to apply. Sauerkraut - eaten
both as a food serving on a plate and a condiment on other foods raises
the point. Tablespoons vs Ounces. What is the conversion?

Since we aren't Metric, the average Joe and Joann won't be able to do
much with grams. So, the "Serving Size" is about as good as the standard
"unit of measure" can get, in the English system of units.

However, we are wise to keep the incomprehensible system going. It
handicaps the US enough to allow great hope for less privileged nations
to anticipate eventually passing us by because of the intellectual
handicap it imposes. Drives some bright children out of the sciences,
for example.

Funny that a country so handicapped put a man on the moon. Anyone
else do that with or without Metric? And if kids can't handle the
English system of measurement, then instead of being bright, they
actually must be quite stupid, because it isn't all that hard. I'm
not saying Metric isn't better or makes more sense, just that it's
silly to try to make a big issue of it or claim that it's going to
cause us to be surpassed.






Learn to enjoy the confusion of weights and measures, We are the last
great industrialized country to maintain such an antiquated and
insensible system.

If we only had Pounds, Shillings, Quid, Pence and that other complex
currency, we could aid less privileged countries to surpass us even more.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

This labeling is almost as bad as the 'Low Carb' Rice I got suckered
into when I was first starting the woe. The lady in the health food
store said she was having a hell of a time keeping the stuff in stock it
was Flying off the shelf with all the low carbers. When some finally
came in, I bought it. I enjoyed the hell out of it. On the label it said
2 grams per serving. I asked about the '11 grain' serving size. She said
it was a miss print. Yea Right!!!! I checked my blood sugar before and
after and by blood sugar level went up to about 300. When I called the
store to complain and suggest that she request proof of the claim, she
almost told me to **** off. Which is what I told her when she called me
back the next month to ask if I wanted to order any more.

Some times, when you want something to be true soooooo bad.. You get
Screwed. I should have known better. I am a big boy. And I didn't even
get kissed.