News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by nostromo on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @06:41PM (#14906150)
I'm happy to see that fat and protein are the main ingredients.

http://impossiblefoods.com/images/faq/nutrition-facts.png

A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by resf on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @07:19PM (#14906400)
Wow, do nutrition labels in USA generally not show figures per 100g?
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by mmanfrin on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @07:28PM (#14906467)
No, and it's really obnoxious, because there are thresholds where content doesn't have to be listed. For example, a package of tic-tacs will say that it has 0g sugar per serving (a 'serving' being one tic-tac), but the whole (small) package will have something like 20g of sugar.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by 3pt14159 on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:08AM (#14909575)
This is one thing I actually think America does right. I'm the type of person to eat a single tic-tac, but even if I acknowledge that there are failures, it's far easier for me to get a rough sense as to how bad eating something is if it lists it's actual content. Ideally there would be both, but having to do 0.85 * 260 just to get the calorie count for this is just annoying.

I do think the design of the labels is completely ridiculous, though. Sugar, trans fats, and caloric count should be made much more prominent and put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by Symbiote on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:38AM (#14909704)
That's more-or-less what Sainsbury's (in the UK) did with their products.

Most things must show the amount per serving and the amount per 100g (in common across the EU), but they also show a chart with green/orange/red based on a typical serving size.

Example: https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/304/media/images/61458000/jpg/...

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by kazinator on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @07:12AM (#14909597)
> put in red so that uninformed people understand that these are the primary causes of sickness in America.

The hypothesis here being what? Lack of red highlighting in informative tables is the cause for uninformedness? :)

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by adrianmonk on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @11:21PM (#14907675)
It's per serving.

Obviously, it's easier to compare if they are all relative to 100g, but arguably per-serving is more useful when making eating decisions. When I'm buying a food, I'm not trying to do science; I'm trying to figure out how much of a particular nutrient I'm personally going to get when I eat that item.

For example, if I have soup, there's no way I'll have as little as 100g of it. If I have tea, there's no way I'm going to have as much as 100g of tea leaves. The mass of a serving could be 1 or even 2 orders of magnitude different depending on the type of food.

Serving sizes are required by law to be "based on amounts of foods and beverages that people are actually eating" (see https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocument... ).

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by seanwilson on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @04:37AM (#14908911)
The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together. Generally I find the serving sizes so low you're best to completely ignore them.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by icebraining on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:43AM (#14909231)
The UK labels generally show per serving and per 100g together.

In fact, I think that's now the norm in the whole of the EU.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by fragmede on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @11:51AM (#14911506)
Per-serving isn't standard between items though. The FDA requirements are broad enough that companies can make up their own serving sizes, and one company could consider a 12oz can one serving, and the other two.

If the two-serving brand is also advertised as low sodium and consumers don't notice that the serving size is half as big, that's gonna seem to be much lower sodium than it really is.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by kbart on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @03:53AM (#14908703)
Serving size is highly individual matter and, from my personal experience, usually much smaller than actual amount I take of pretty much everything.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by aedron on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:39AM (#14909203)
Why not both? Which is what is used in Europe.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by adrianmonk on Thursday August 03, 2017 @06:16PM (#14924445)
It can certainly go either way, but space and simplicity would be the arguments against including both. On a small label, you might need to use a smaller font. Even if you have enough space, a more minimalist approach can be quicker to read (provided that it contains the information you actually want).
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by wott on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:18PM (#14906742)
We should consider ourselves lucky they used grams at all and not their fancy units.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by DrScump on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @09:06PM (#14907031)
What drives me nuts is that the Nutrition Information has metric units but the front of the package may not (e.g. "One Quart (32 oz)" but no liter equivalent printed).

Worse is that many products have bogus information. I'm not talking just about the inexactness of the methods, but in many cases the macronutrient math doesn't add up.

Total calories should be about (protein + carb)x4 + (fat)x9. Too often, it isn't close. I was comparing two versions within a product line yesterday (chili with beans vs without beans), and the calorie count for one mismatched the macronutrient breakdown by almost 10%.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by wolfgang42 on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @12:11AM (#14907858)
If you think that's bad, I encountered a package of tofu recently which stated "Serving Size: 1/4 package; Servings per Package: 8"! Things like that really make you wonder about the reliability of the rest of the information on the label...
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by Terribledactyl on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @07:30PM (#14906477)
It's either a seemingly random measure or, if in a single serving container, the total calories.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by HillaryBriss on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:14PM (#14906730)
interesting. FWIW, here's the ingredients list for the Beyond Meat burger:

water, pea protein isolate, oil blend (canola oil, flaxseed oil, palmoil, sunflower oil, dha algal oil), methylcellulose, carrageenan, potassium bicarbonate, caramel color†, yeast extract, maltodextrin, potassium chloride, tapioca starch, sorbitol, calcium chloride, natural flavoring, spices, salt, vegetable extract mix (spinach, broccoli, carrot, tomato, beet, shiitake mushroom), l-cysteine hydrochloride, beetjuice powder (flavor and color), natural hickory smoke concentrate, calcium sulfate, onion powder, onion extract, mesquite powder, sugar‡, pomegranate seed powder, ferric phosphate (iron), paprika extract (spice and color), garlic extract, cyanocobalamin (vitamin b12)

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by mtl_usr on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @09:18PM (#14907104)
> A lot of veggie imitation meats are low on fat and protein and extremely high on processed carbs.

Which makes them pretty bad, even worst for dieting.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by pkaye on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @08:52PM (#14906934)
I wish they would list the phosphorus contents. I'm on dialysis and require high protein requirements every day but must restrict phosphorus. If I knew this number I could better account for it in my diet. Unfortunately phosphorus is not required in current labeling requirements.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by mtl_usr on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @09:17PM (#14907096)
That's a shame.

Curious, how do you normally figure out the phosphorus content ? Is there a guideline somewhere that gives you an adequate estimate ?

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by pkaye on Tuesday August 01, 2017 @10:56PM (#14907568)
For many common food items, the USDA has a database of full nutrition information including phosphorus. This is a God send for me. https://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/search/list

Beyond thing I have few tricks to get a estimate but mostly for those things I don't know the numbers well, I eat in moderation.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by ThePadawan on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @02:27AM (#14908374)
I'm glad as well - I've found that even seemingly similar products by different brands will wildly vary in carb/protein content.

I could go grab two brands of non-meat burger patty off the shelves right now, and one will be 25% carbs, and one 6%. It's ridiculous.

Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by petre on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @12:31AM (#14907941)
If you add up the percentages the total amounts to 40%. I wonder what's the rest.
Re:Impossible Foods has raised $75M for its plant-based burgers by Luc on Wednesday August 02, 2017 @05:17AM (#14909083)
Water