sneaky labels (breakfast cereal edition)

Kellogg now prints sugar content on the front of the cereal box to give consumers the knowledge they need to make informed choices about their health. Bravo!

On the front of Kellogg’s Raisin Bran Crunch its sugar content is listed as 20 grams per serving. On the front of Kellogg’s Honey Smacks the label says 15 grams per serving. Which cereal has more sugar?

It's a trick question. The numbers on the front of the box are meaningless, because the serving size isn't consistent among cereals. As it turns out, Honey Smacks is the sugariest (is that a word?) cereal that Kellogg produces. By weight, Sugar Smacks is 55% sugar, which sets it apart from Apple Jacks (43% sugar) or Froot Loops (41%) or Frosted Flakes (36%) or Cocoa Krispies (39%).

I'm not suggesting that Kellogg's broke any laws, nor am I suggesting that the politicians intervene. The information is still listed in the fine print on the side of the box, and a responsible consumer can still take the time to get out the calculator and do a little research if their health is that important to them.

But the whole point is that it shouldn't take a calculator. I like buying from businesses who show some pride in their product and give me straightforward facts that aren't confusing.

Kind of like the government calling a spending increase a budget cut?

Quote: Nareed

Kind of like the government calling a spending increase a budget cut?

But, but...we planned to spend insanely more money in the future. Now we're only going to spend waaaaaaaaaay more money in the future. We totally cut our budget. Plus, we might never pay 70,000 FAA workers again, so that'll help.

What about gas mileage ratings when you buy a car? They're usually not very 'realistic'.

I really dig the third bullet on this site:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml

Here's what it says if you don't want to go to the site.

"Starting in model year 2008, estimates reflect the effects of:

-Colder outside temperatures"

I thought we were having global warming? wtf?

Quote: Alan

"Starting in model year 2008, estimates reflect the effects of:

-Colder outside temperatures"

I thought we were having global warming? wtf?

Testing used to be done in ideal conditions. Now it's done in realistic conditions. It turns out that a car gets better gas mileage on a track in central California than it does on roads in northern Minnesota.

Well, everyone knows, or should, that food labels state nutritional info on the basis of servings. The rationale is that you should know how much in the way of calories, fats, protein, etc you'll be consuming when you eat a portion (serving) of a product. If I told you how many calories there are in a 2 lbs box of cereal, that would leave you none the wiser as to how many there are in the bowl you plan to eat. On the other hand, you'll typically down a can or small bottle of soda, so in such cases the serving equals the whole.

That's not to say there are no tricks played with food labels. There are plenty. For one thing serving size may only ahve a distant relationship to what real people eat on one actual serving. Som products with high alories, be they from fat, sugar or both, will often use ridiculously tiny portions as servings, to amke them look less fattening.

One solid solution would be to put in what percentage of calories comes from fats, proteins and carbs, with a separate percentage for sugar as part of carbs. The recommended proportions for a day's worth of meals is 30% fats 15% protein and 55% carbs for an average, healthy adult. If you're on a diet, you'd do better with less fat and more carbs.

As for government, if the budget was 2 trillion this year and would have been 3 trillion the next, the average politico will instead increase it to 2.75 trillion and claim he's cut the budget by 25%.

Quote: reno

Which cereal has more sugar?

It's a trick question. The numbers on the front of the box are meaningless, because the serving size isn't consistent among cereals. As it turns out, Honey Smacks is the sugariest (is that a word?) cereal that Kellogg produces. By weight, Sugar Smacks is 55% sugar, which sets it apart from Apple Jacks (43% sugar) or Froot Loops (41%) or Frosted Flakes (36%) or Cocoa Krispies (39%).

The information is still listed in the fine print on the side of the box, and a responsible consumer can still take the time to get out the calculator and do a little research if their health is that important to them.

Chances are, if you're the kind of person who regularly buys Sugar Frosted Cocoa Bombs, you don't much care about your health. In fact, sugar content is what you're looking for, not guarding against. Sugar Smacks is 55% sugar??? That's not enough sugar for some folks.

Quote: reno

Which cereal has more sugar?

It's a trick question. The numbers on the front of the box are meaningless, because the serving size isn't consistent among cereals. As it turns out, Honey Smacks is the sugariest (is that a word?) cereal that Kellogg produces. By weight, Sugar Smacks is 55% sugar, which sets it apart from Apple Jacks (43% sugar) or Froot Loops (41%) or Frosted Flakes (36%) or Cocoa Krispies (39%).

The information is still listed in the fine print on the side of the box, and a responsible consumer can still take the time to get out the calculator and do a little research if their health is that important to them.

Sugar smacks are 55% sugar by weight. But puffed rice weights approximately 0 grams per cup, so that's hardly surprising. Is the actual sugar content of one cup of Smacks actually higher than those other cereals? Or do the differing weights of the cereals themselves just skew things?