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
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.
we don’t even list serving sizes on our stuff, just nutrients per 100g so you can count it yourself
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
If you aren’t going to measure how much you’re eating, then neither form of label matters.
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.
In Germany the nutrients per 100g are mandatory, but most of the time there is nutrients per serving on there too.
A nutrition label useful for both comparison and meal planning? What will they think of next?
I know, I was making a reference to how ridiculously large American portion sizes are.