• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Food labelling rant

EllieM

EllieM

Moderator
Staff Member
Moderator
Messages
10,244
Location
New Zealand
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Pump
Dislikes
hypos and forum bugs
OK, does anyone else find that food labelling is often designed to deliberately obscure the food values of the product you are eating.

Some examples
1) packets of biscuits where the values are given per portion, rather than per biscuit, and (if you're lucky) the packet specifies the number of portions in the bag. You are then stuck with counting the number of biscuits in the bag or finding some scales to weigh the individual biscuit. Sometimes they just give the amount per 100g and you have to examine the packet carefully to find the weight, then do the math.
2) products where the carb values are given per g (weight) but the product quantity is stated in ml (volume). (Still remember sitting on Southend pier with a hypo trying to work out the carb vals in an ice cream tub. :))
3) And the writing is so small ! :) OK, the last complaint may be influenced by my increasing difficulty to read small print unaided, but I don't need glasses to read anything else.
 
Or white text on bright yellow background.
 
And
4) The carb info is obscured by a price label which is stuck so firmly that it can't be removed....
 
My main complaint is products like pasta and rice where the nutritional values are given by weight for cooked product..

a) Who weighs such things after cooking them?
b) It would be practically impossible to prepare them to the same weight as listed on the packet. Far too many variables like heat, water etc..
 
Last edited:
For your biscuit example @EllieM, if it lists per portion and per 100g, the fastest way to the weight of an average biscuit is to divide carbs per portion by the per 100g fields - e.g.:

Fox's Golden Crunch Creams
Per 100g - 66g
Per biscuit - 10g

10/66=0.15~=15g~ weight of an average biscuit
 
Same issue for me @EllieM - It's simply seeing what the numbers are, I often have to get my daughter to tell me what the number is, yes finally got to the age where I need bifocals..

I also use a bit of common sense with values too as I got caught out on soup a few months ago where the label told me it was about 10g of carb more than it should of been and ended up hypo, so I err on the side of caution if it doesn't feel right.
 
EllieM said:
And
4) The carb info is obscured by a price label which is stuck so firmly that it can't be removed....
Click to expand...
Price labels how retro is that, we use bar codes here in our stores for the price.
 
In the uk all labels must give the per 100g or ml not just the per portion amounts which are optional. I hate the tiny writing, in sentences rather than a chart is even mor difficult to read. And don’t get me started on decimal points being on the line like a full stop rather than half way up confusing things even more.
 
Tipetoo said:
Price labels how retro is that, we use bar codes here in our stores for the price.
Click to expand...
Unless it's a "mark down." (sell by date.) ;) But then that's put on the front. Nowhere near nutritional values. Or thrown over the bar code.

Edit; yep. Once worked in food retail.
 
Or the carb count you quickly glanced at is for half that "cup of soup". Who eats half the container of a cup of soup?
 
Another vote against the silly small writing, in colours and on colours that make it fiendish to read.
I accept the need for reading glasses nowadays, and I accept the need for good lighting.
But there is no point giving obligatory information in a format that is illegible.
 
Last edited:
My husband and I have to "team shop" these days - he's a tad forgetful as he gets older and doesn't often remember his reading glasses. I don't usually wear my long distance glasses. Together we can see both close up and in the distance.

I am the label reader, and a lot of the time I have to bring the item really close to my extremely short-sighted eyes before I can make out the content. I know that even with his reading glasses my husband would really struggle. It's so annoying and it makes him feel daft when he's shopping alone if he has to ask someone else to read the label for him!
 
I'm with @db89 on the cooked weights thing. Because yes who the heck weighs pasta or rice or oven chips after they've been cooked . For a start I'd like to know how exactly I can weigh lasagne sheets after I've cooked a lasagne!
My latest bugbear with Asda is their frozen oven chips which can be oven cooked or fried (it advertises that on the packaging) - I fry them yet the values on the back are for 100g of oven cooked chips .......
And yes cooked weights will also depend on exactly how much you've cooked them for anyways, but the carb value won't change (well unless you really turn it into a lump of charcoal)
 
Yep, it's like a maths exam to have some oven chips with Asda! But they aren't the only ones - I've had to make a note for Tesco's Easy Cook brown rice from the back of my last packet as when I bought a new one the other week they've also moved to listing it in cooked weight. Frustrating.. at least there are tools like Google Keep and MyFitnessPal to keep track of this stuff.

So, what I do for Asda's chips (taking Homestyle for example) is divide the pack weight by the portion amount listed on the back (they usually list this as a fraction) to work out what the portion weighs on average when cooked:

(ovenbaked)
Per 100g: 32g
Per 1/12 pack: 40g

(frozen)
Pack weight: 1500g

1500/12 = 125g
Which means 125g frozen should on average be 40g carbs when cooked.

Sometimes I just buy McCain as they list it in frozen weight and ovenbaked weight when I can't be faffed with this. :playful:
 
or the carbs listed only in small print on the back whereas Sugar is listed in bold on the front. No one told the EU that sugar is just another carb and Carbs not Sugar should be listed on the front
 
I have to use a magnifying glass very near a very large window, can't afford to make any mistakes, I hate small print that is pale in colour on a pale background, just:wacky:
 
This could get a lot worse.
A few years ago, before I retired, I attended a conference in Amsterdam about 'reducing the government burden on business'. One of their MPs held up a small pack of sugary Belgium waffles, pointing out that the official info covered most of the pack. His suggestion that the EU should rescind the law that obliges us to have food labelling, as it was unfair for manufacturers, was supported by key official UK reps (MPs and civil servants, except me).
Luckily the proposal was rejected by the EU Commission and most governments.
Now, as part of the benefits of leaving the EU, several key cabinet members and several of the current leadership hopefuls have said we will be able to get rid of these types of 'burden'.

We may be fighting just to retain the labelling we already have :(
 
I would definitely concur on the size and type of font used.

Then you have to do the maths
 
I've just returned from my hols in the USA, found the labelling difficult to interpret on the packets. For example, I bought some 92% chocolate, the carbs breakdown is as follows for a serving(!) of 34g:
Total carb 10G
Dietary Fiber 4g
Total sugars 2g
Incl Added Sugars 2g

I think it works out at about 7g per bar, but I'm not sure!
At least in the UK the values are given (usually) per 100g.
 
Back
Top