Stupid Labeling

I got out my stash of sauerkraut and the labeling situation is the same.
This is made by Hebrew National and the serving size is 2 Tbsp. (30 g). So,
maybe it is a government directed labeling.

This brand has:
sodium 180 mg
total carb 1 g
dietary fiber 1 g

and no sugar. The label reports: cabbage, water, salt, sodium benzoate and
sodium bisulfite added as preservatives. It comes in a plastic bag and is
really good for sauerkraut--one of the best offerings of the type that I
have found.

Pat in TX

I should make my own anyway, next time cabbage is on sale. I made
some a few years ago when I had a garden, and it was very easy and
tasted great. You don't need a crock or anything with the recipe I
used. You just mix the cabbage and salt, fill the jars and screw the
tops on as tight as you can, and put it away to ferment with a tray
under the jars to catch the juice that gets forced out as it cooks.
--
Aaron --

Don't forget to add water, too.

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.




I agree, and I don't think they should be allowed to round off at all.

Jbuch wrote:
:: Hollywood wrote:
::: 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.
:::
:::
::: Hrm....
:::
::: I dunno about you, but I count Grams of Carbs. I also count grams of
::: protein. And, these are easy to count, because they are reported, on
::: products, in grams as well.
:::
::: Yeah, we use the English Goofiness, but most dieters are at least
::: hybrid metric to start with (if you count fat, that's grams.
::
:: No, most USA dieters are regular USA people and they ain't got
:: metric in their minds in the first place. It gets a little forced on
:: them because of the diet literature - in order to be scientific at
:: all, you must be metric.
::
:: The science part of modern diets forces the metric system into all of
:: the literature, and the dieters are forced to go along, if they
:: actually read anything.
::
::
:: If you
::: count calories, that would seem to be metric too). 100 grams is how
::: they sell stuff in other countries. And everything has a 100g
::: portion option on nutritiondata.com. I don't see why, if goofy
::: Europe can handle 100 grams, we can't at least agree on a mandated
::: serve size of 100 grams. Or 4 ounces. Whatever.
::
:: We can't agree to adopt much of the wisdom of the rest of the world
:: beacause to the typical USA guy or gal, that metric stuff is
:: "Strange". Mostly, the USA is a scientifically illiterate country,
:: by comparison to Europe and other industrialized nations.
::
:::
::: Ultimately, the point isn't about going metric or the goofiness of
::: the King's system. It's about applying a standard to demystify the
::: whole thing. And the only people who can't get behind that probably
::: work for food companies. A
::
:: That is an unfounded assertion on your part. Do you have any facts
:: that substantiate this wild conjecture?
::
::
:: nd frankly, since I buy, I don't care what they want.
:::
::: -Hollywood
:::
:::
::
::
:: It appears that you fail to understand the actual
:: goofiness/arbitrariness of the Imperial system.
::
:: 50 years ago, the USA was an industrial giant, but that was because
:: most of the other industrial giants were decimated by World War II.
:: For many years, the USA dominated world manufacturing.
::
:: But gradually that changed. The Imperial system was dropped by the
:: few industrial nations which had it. Except the USA.
::
:: Now, you know that relatively little is manufactured in the USA
:: anymore. Most of the manufacturing is done in Metric countries. No
:: inches, feet, yards, rods, miles....... and no ounces, pounds, tons,
:: long tons, short tons, grains. .... Just the logical modern
:: scientific measurement systems of the Metric system.
::
:: The Imperial system is dead in the world. It makes life much more
:: complicated than it need be.
::
:: The goofiness of the Imperial system means that we have a hard time
:: adopting to or accepting the standards of everyone else in the world,
:: even if they have good logical standards.
::
:: That is the point. And the issue of scientific illiteracy in the USA
:: handicapping us. Retaining the Imperial measurement system is a sound
:: expression of scientific illiteracy.
::
:: You did a nice job of describing the growing use of the metric
:: system, but only because it is required in almost all science, and
:: much of engineering is finally getting that way.

Much of? I thought all engineering is using the metric system...there has
never been a time in my lifespan where it wasn't there, in every textbook,
in fact.

Jake wrote:
:: 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.
:::
:::
:::
::
:: I agree, and I don't think they should be allowed to round off at
:: all.

they have to round at some point.....as someone else said, 1/10g = 0.1g (one
digit behind the decimal) should be sufficient, I think.

No, most USA dieters are regular USA people and they ain't got metric in
their minds in the first place. It gets a little forced on them because of
the diet literature - in order to be scientific at all, you must be
metric.

The science part of modern diets forces the metric system into all of the
literature, and the dieters are forced to go along, if they actually read
anything.


Oh give it a break! The US is more of a half English/half metric system by
now. Or haven't you noticed all of the liter bottles of soda around and the
car engines done in the metric system?

We can't agree to adopt much of the wisdom of the rest of the world
beacause to the typical USA guy or gal, that metric stuff is "Strange".
Mostly, the USA is a scientifically illiterate country, by comparison to
Europe and other industrialized nations.

IIRC, when the US was supposed to change to the metric system back in the
1970's, it was thought to be "un-American" and so many people opposed it.
But, we were in the "cold war" back then, too. As for being "scientifically
illiterate", that's just too funny to take seriously.

Pat in TX

Roger Zoul wrote:
Jbuch wrote:
:: Hollywood wrote:
::: 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.
:::
:::
::: Hrm....
:::
::: I dunno about you, but I count Grams of Carbs. I also count grams of
::: protein. And, these are easy to count, because they are reported, on
::: products, in grams as well.
:::
::: Yeah, we use the English Goofiness, but most dieters are at least
::: hybrid metric to start with (if you count fat, that's grams.
::
:: No, most USA dieters are regular USA people and they ain't got
:: metric in their minds in the first place. It gets a little forced on
:: them because of the diet literature - in order to be scientific at
:: all, you must be metric.
::
:: The science part of modern diets forces the metric system into all of
:: the literature, and the dieters are forced to go along, if they
:: actually read anything.
::
::
:: If you
::: count calories, that would seem to be metric too). 100 grams is how
::: they sell stuff in other countries. And everything has a 100g
::: portion option on nutritiondata.com. I don't see why, if goofy
::: Europe can handle 100 grams, we can't at least agree on a mandated
::: serve size of 100 grams. Or 4 ounces. Whatever.
::
:: We can't agree to adopt much of the wisdom of the rest of the world
:: beacause to the typical USA guy or gal, that metric stuff is
:: "Strange". Mostly, the USA is a scientifically illiterate country,
:: by comparison to Europe and other industrialized nations.
::
:::
::: Ultimately, the point isn't about going metric or the goofiness of
::: the King's system. It's about applying a standard to demystify the
::: whole thing. And the only people who can't get behind that probably
::: work for food companies. A
::
:: That is an unfounded assertion on your part. Do you have any facts
:: that substantiate this wild conjecture?
::
::
:: nd frankly, since I buy, I don't care what they want.
:::
::: -Hollywood
:::
:::
::
::
:: It appears that you fail to understand the actual
:: goofiness/arbitrariness of the Imperial system.
::
:: 50 years ago, the USA was an industrial giant, but that was because
:: most of the other industrial giants were decimated by World War II.
:: For many years, the USA dominated world manufacturing.
::
:: But gradually that changed. The Imperial system was dropped by the
:: few industrial nations which had it. Except the USA.
::
:: Now, you know that relatively little is manufactured in the USA
:: anymore. Most of the manufacturing is done in Metric countries. No
:: inches, feet, yards, rods, miles....... and no ounces, pounds, tons,
:: long tons, short tons, grains. .... Just the logical modern
:: scientific measurement systems of the Metric system.
::
:: The Imperial system is dead in the world. It makes life much more
:: complicated than it need be.
::
:: The goofiness of the Imperial system means that we have a hard time
:: adopting to or accepting the standards of everyone else in the world,
:: even if they have good logical standards.
::
:: That is the point. And the issue of scientific illiteracy in the USA
:: handicapping us. Retaining the Imperial measurement system is a sound
:: expression of scientific illiteracy.
::
:: You did a nice job of describing the growing use of the metric
:: system, but only because it is required in almost all science, and
:: much of engineering is finally getting that way.

Much of? I thought all engineering is using the metric system...there has
never been a time in my lifespan where it wasn't there, in every textbook,
in fact.



I remember short introductory discussions on units in which both the
English and Metric units would be described. The science books would
then go on to use the metric systems, and the engineering books would go
on to use the English systems. So, just having a discussion about the
metric system doesn't mean that the whole book is in the metric system.

Electrical engineering has always been Metric with Watts, Volts,
Amps...... Well, the physical device sizes were English, but that was
because they had to be Made In America.

Chemical engineering is *******ized. Certainly the chemical part is
mostly Metric, but the heat transfer and pressure parts and fluid flow
are all Imperial or English uints with temperature F, energy in BTU,
Pressure in Psi,...... Well, I should say were, because it has been a
long time since I took Chemical Engineering classes. But, I doubt if
the large processing plants are Metric, because most construction
materials aren't metric.

Mechanical engineering is, or was, mostly English with feet per second,
miles per hour and so on. They have to deal with real objects in the
USA and American clients. Concrete mixer and pourer people aren't ideal
"Metric Experts". That is a Civil Engineering example, however. Out
highways aren't designed in Metric with bridge clearances and widths in
Meters.

One of the failed Mars missions in the last five years was caused by
half of the engineering time working in the Metric system, and the other
half working in the English system, and back-converting the units to
Metric. The contract called for the use of the Metric system. Perhaps,
you remember hearing about that.

I worked on a NASA project which was supposed to be Metric, but the
engineers worked English and converted. They were older, and were
familiar with the English, and hated the Damned Metric.

Pat wrote:
No, most USA dieters are regular USA people and they ain't got metric in
their minds in the first place. It gets a little forced on them because of
the diet literature - in order to be scientific at all, you must be
metric.

The science part of modern diets forces the metric system into all of the
literature, and the dieters are forced to go along, if they actually read
anything.



Oh give it a break! The US is more of a half English/half metric system by
now. Or haven't you noticed all of the liter bottles of soda around and the
car engines done in the metric system?


We can't agree to adopt much of the wisdom of the rest of the world
beacause to the typical USA guy or gal, that metric stuff is "Strange".
Mostly, the USA is a scientifically illiterate country, by comparison to
Europe and other industrialized nations.


IIRC, when the US was supposed to change to the metric system back in the
1970's, it was thought to be "un-American" and so many people opposed it.
But, we were in the "cold war" back then, too. As for being "scientifically
illiterate", that's just too funny to take seriously.

Pat in TX




What is the weight of a kilogram?

What is the mass of a pound?
(about 1/32 of a "slug" - slug is indeed the English unit of mass)

"Pat" writes:

IIRC, when the US was supposed to change to the metric system back
in the 1970's, it was thought to be "un-American" and so many people
opposed it. But, we were in the "cold war" back then, too.

Despite my anti-metric-teaching rant, I'm enough of a science and math
geek to realize the metric system *is* easier to learn. However, our
own system works just fine too -- maybe requiring a few more glances
at the "Measures and Conversions" page in the back of the almanac, but
that's not enough incentive for a generation that grew up on one
system to learn a completely different one.

My objection was never to the metric system itself, but to the main
reason we were given in school for converting to it, which was: "We
must do it because everyone else is doing it." The same reason school
kids learn to use drugs, basically. If they'd convinced me to look at
everything that way, I wouldn't be sitting here eating sausage and
eggs for breakfast; I'd be having a bran muffin and a glass of orange
juice, followed by a handful of Rolaids for the heartburn and possibly
a shot of insulin.

As for being "scientifically illiterate", that's just too funny to
take seriously.

Well, it's not like most of the scientific advances in my lifetime
came from one nation....oh wait.

It does seem kind of funny to think that the people who learn the
complicated and arcane system for measurement -- and often learn
metric besides -- are somehow the dumb ones.



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

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

On Mar 1, 6:54 pm, Aramanth Dawe wrote:
"Bob in CT" wrote:

I think
the law should be 100g of material. This would allow comparisons. Today,
it's impossible to compare even the same products sometimes.

In Australia, that is EXACTLY the law. On every container with a
nutrient panel, the company has to give not only the 'per serve'
amounts but ALSO the amount per 100g no matter whether the normal
serve is a teaspoon full or a cup full. Makes it very easy to compare
'across brands' and get the best food for your eating plan.

In most cases, it's very easy to compare across brands here in the US
too. I don't know who determines the serving size, but I'd say in 90%
+ of the cases, it's set the same across various brands of the
products I look at.

The way some of this discussion is going, one would think they are all
set differently, but in fact, they are not.





We also calculate amounts per 1/10 g which makes it much harder to
'hide' amounts. No saying 'less than one gram' when it means 0.9 g -
our labels will show it. The sole exception is where there is
considerably less than 1 g per 100g serve - then you CAN say 'less
than one gram' and you *know* it's truly low.

Aramanth in Sunny South Australia