There should be a standard serving size such as per 100 mL or 100 g, so each of the ingredients can be related to a percent. I am looking at the nutritional label on a can of Fritos. It says that a 28 g serving contains 110 mg of sodium. The can contains 156 g of Fritos. If the serving size was per 100 g, then the sodium would be 393 mg. This would mean that there is 0.393 g/100 g of sodium or about 0.4 %. Since the can contains about 50 % more then the serving size, then I am looking close to 600 mg of sodium if I eat the whole can.
The label also says that the % daily requirement is 5 %. So I can also compare 0.4 % with 5 % to know that by eating the whole can where I stand with my sodium intake compared to my daily needs. Obviously the present labels aren't designed to make it easy for us. I wonder if it was intentional or the person who came up with the present label doesn't have a clue. Jerry ________________________________ From: Pierre Abbat <[email protected]> To: U..S. Metric Association <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 8:58:54 AM Subject: [USMA:43183] Re: true metrication is systemic On Sunday 22 February 2009 07:42:17 John M. Steele wrote: > Nutrition labeling is defined under different laws and rules but also by > the FDA. > Note that the serving size MUST contain a metric reference and this is the > serving actually analyzed. It must ALSO contain a reference to "familiar > units" which may include a count. > This is a rare instance where the metric is binding and the familiar units > are rounded. Specific (and slightly wrong) rounding factors must be used, > such as 8 fl oz = 240 mL. This is wrong to the number of figures > apparently indicated, but correct to two figures. A more correct value of > 237 mL is NOT permitted, yet a more accurate conversion is REQUIRED for net > content labels. This law needs to be changed. If the metric amount is binding, it should be outside the parentheses. And the milliliter ought to be declared a familiar unit, as it's on all the measuring cups I've seen. Food packagers should have a bit of leeway when declaring the serving size, or should be able to declare a non-integral number of servings per package. On a 1 liter bottle, I'd make the serving size 250 mL, not 240. I would say "about n servings per package" if the package contents vary. Pierre
