# Is this normal American food labelling/marketing? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 28, 2015, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525 "2015-12-28T01:15:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/21 "2015-12-28T10:50:27Z")
I think of mustard as something you smear a smidgen on a ham sammich or burger. Agree that mustard dogs often have 2 tbsp = 6 tsp. ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/22 "2015-12-28T11:44:32Z")
The most extreme example is cooking spray, like [PAM](http://www.pamcookingspray.com/non-stick-spray-products/original-spray-oil/), which is basically cooking oil in a spray can. If you look at the ingredients list, the first item is canola oil. Yet the nutrition label (see above link) says: Total fat = 0, Calories = 0. Because serving size is a 1/4-second spray, which is 0.2g. (And this is pretty reasonable - I can’t think of any situation where you’d get much more than 0.2 gram of cooking spray into a serving of food.) ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/23 "2015-12-28T12:01:49Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > For the brand that I have, a 5 gram serve would be 13 calories (agrees with the Aus label), how can that be rounded down to 0? Do they just round down to the nearest 100 calories? Can’t be the nearest 10. [FDA guideline](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064932.htm) says anything under 5 calories per serving may be labeled as 0. Which I agree is inconsistent with the “300 calories per 100 g” label for the mustard. I suspect the label is wrong. Even pure sugar is only 4 calories per gram; how can mustard, which is mostly water (by weight), have 3/4 of the energy density of pure sugar? ETA: Wikipedia lists [yellow mustard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_(condiment)) as 66 calories per 100 g, which sounds more reasonable. And would mean that a 5-gram serving has 3.3 calories, which is consistent with “0 calories” label under FDA guidelines. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/24 "2015-12-28T12:28:56Z")
> [@Dewey\_Finn](#): > > I think the idea is to set a standard serving size for the snack foods. So whatever the package size is, the serving size is consistent. I’ve seen different serving sizes quoted for the same foods even from the same manufacturer – in fact the other day I was curious about two kinds of potato chips from the same manufacturer and the same brand name except one was labeled “original” – and the nutritional info was quoted in terms of different numbers of chips! Even worse is when you have some convenience food that is _ **obviously** _ intended to be a single-serving microwaveable snack, and the calorie count is (sometimes) given in some arbitrary round-number quantity unrelated to what you’re actually going to be consuming! And sometimes not. Even the same kinds of food from the same manufacturer. > [@scr4](#): > > [FDA guideline](http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/LabelingNutrition/ucm064932.htm) says anything under 5 calories per serving may be labeled as 0. > > Which I agree is inconsistent with the “300 calories per 100 g” label for the mustard. I suspect the label is wrong. Even pure sugar is only 4 calories per gram; how can mustard, which is mostly water (by weight), have 3/4 of the energy density of pure sugar? > > ETA: Wikipedia lists [yellow mustard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mustard_(condiment)) as 66 calories per 100 g, which sounds more reasonable. And would mean that a 5-gram serving has 3.3 calories, which is consistent with “0 calories” label under FDA guidelines. The label is not necessarily wrong. Many types of mustard, like Dijon, have much higher calorie counts than the plain yellow stuff. I also get zero calories claimed for 5 ml of the plain yellow stuff, but three other kinds give a calorie count of 10 per 5 ml (about 5 g) and **Richard Pearse** above mentions one with 13 calories/5 g. Those would be, respectively, 200 and 260 calories per 100 grams – although the math probably amplifies a rounding factor. ---
**Author:** ![obfusciatrist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4af34b/32.png) [@obfusciatrist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/obfusciatrist)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/25 "2015-12-28T13:28:59Z")
I assume so, but just to check. Are the units the same? On American labels “calorie” is actually kcals. Is that true of Australian labels as well? ---
**Author:** ![Diceman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/22d042/32.png) [@Diceman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diceman)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/26 "2015-12-28T14:28:18Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > There definitely is a certain amount of wishful thinking on serving sizes on some products, especially snack foods. Such as individual sized packages which claim 95 calories per serving and that the package contains “about 2 servings”. Liar liar pants on fire. Reality is one serving of 190 calories. The American system absolutely leads to a certain amount of mathematical bullshit. I haven’t checked recently, but Coke & Pepsi used to claim that a single can of pop (that most people would consume as 1 serving) contained 2 or even 2.5 servings. Sure, right :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![jz78817](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jz78817/32/1028_2.png) [@jz78817](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jz78817)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/27 "2015-12-28T14:37:07Z")
> [@Richard\_Pearse](#): > > As for who eats 100 g in one sitting? Well if you like the flavour and you’ve been told it is literally zero calories then you just might eat 100g in one sitting. Also on the back of the pack there is a recipe for a chicken dish where you use 2/3 of a cup of the mustard. I like mustard, but the bottles/jars I get at the store are 250-300g total. I cannot fathom eating 1/3rd of that in one sitting. nor can I imagine that a chicken dish calling for 2/3 cup of mustard would be a single portion. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/28 "2015-12-28T15:01:21Z")
> [@scr4](#): > > Even pure sugar is only 4 calories per gram; how can mustard, which is mostly water (by weight), have 3/4 of the energy density of pure sugar? Pure oil is 9 calories per gram. Some mustards contain significant amounts of oil. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/29 "2015-12-28T15:04:47Z")
> [@SigMan](#): > > Who the hell put 1 tsp of mustard on their hot dog? :rolleyes: I’m not sure if you’re saying that’s too much or too little, but it sounds exactly right to me. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/30 "2015-12-28T15:33:36Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > The American system absolutely leads to a certain amount of mathematical bullshit. I haven’t checked recently, but Coke & Pepsi used to claim that a single can of pop (that most people would consume as 1 serving) contained 2 or even 2.5 servings. Sure, right :rolleyes: My hazy memory is telling me that when the new (i.e. current) nutrition fact labels were introduced, there was legislation along with it that addressed this and set guidelines about what a reasonable serving size could be. ---
**Author:** ![bob\_2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bob_2/32/3341_2.png) [@bob\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bob_2)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/31 "2015-12-28T15:57:00Z")
I checked a pot of Coleman’s English Mustard. It says 813KJ per 100g, 41kJ per portion, \<1% per portion. Hot dog mustard has 813KJ per 100g, 41kJ per portion, \<1% per portion. That, as far as I know is the standard UK layout. ---
**Author:** ![SigMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@SigMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SigMan)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/32 "2015-12-28T16:53:19Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > I’m not sure if you’re saying that’s too much or too little, but it sounds exactly right to me. That’s tsp not tbsp. I like lots of mustard on my hot dog. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/33 "2015-12-28T17:05:09Z")
[More](http://blog.fooducate.com/2013/05/30/what-happened-to-the-calories-in-frenchs-mustard/) on the mustard calories that mysteriously vanished in the night. Meantime, it is good to know that Himalayan rock salt is getting safer and safer to consume. Not only it is marketed as “gmo-free”, there is at least one version that is also touted to be “Un-irradiated…organic,halal and kosher” as well as “Approved by the FDA and recommended by the National Institute of Health”\*. \*somehow I doubt this. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/34 "2015-12-28T21:07:39Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Meantime, it is good to know that Himalayan rock salt is getting safer and safer to consume. Not only it is marketed as “gmo-free”, there is at least one version that is also touted to be “Un-irradiated…organic,halal and kosher” as well as “Approved by the FDA and recommended by the National Institute of Health”\*. > > \*somehow I doubt this. How can a mineral be “organic”? ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/35 "2015-12-28T21:12:09Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > How can a mineral be “organic”? “Organic” as applied to foodstuffs means generally “without pesticides, herbicides, added man-made chemicals, or GMOs.” Pretty easy for rock salt to meet that standard. As long as you’re not recovering it from a toxic waste dump you’re golden. ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 9:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/36 "2015-12-28T21:22:17Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > “Organic” as applied to foodstuffs means generally “without pesticides, herbicides, added man-made chemicals, or GMOs.” > > Pretty easy for rock salt to meet that standard. As long as you’re not recovering it from a toxic waste dump you’re golden. I have a container of mined salt that claims it’s better than sea salt because its salt evaporated millions of years ago, back when the oceans were pure. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/37 "2015-12-28T21:25:40Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > Meantime, it is good to know that Himalayan rock salt is getting safer and safer to consume. Not only it is marketed as “gmo-free”, there is at least one version that is also touted to be “Un-irradiated…organic,halal and kosher” as well as “Approved by the FDA and recommended by the National Institute of Health”\*. > > \*somehow I doubt this. I could see that the National Institute of Health might recommend some salt in one’s diet, so in that respect, they may be correct. Sort of. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/38 "2015-12-28T21:31:26Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > How can a mineral be “organic”? +1 We often see bottled water being labelled as organic. I refuse to buy it as the chemist in me insists that organic water should be black and full of decaying peat. ---
**Author:** ![boffking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/858c86/32.png) [@boffking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boffking)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/39 "2015-12-29T01:50:03Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > +1 > > We often see bottled water being labelled as organic. > I refuse to buy it as the chemist in me insists that organic water should be black and full of decaying peat. The water isn’t what’s organic. The _bottle_ is organic. It’s made of carbon-based polymers. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2015, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525/40 "2015-12-29T01:52:43Z")
\*\*CPG Sec. 525.575 Prepared Mustard - Composition \*\* BACKGROUND: No standard of identity for prepared mustard has been established under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Prepared mustard and the mustard seed ingredients used therein were defined in Food Inspection Decision 192, June 27, 1923. These definitions were adopted as a guide for purpose of enforcement of the Food and Drugs Act of 1906 and with few changes have continued in use as a guide for enforcement purposes under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. The latest revision of the definitions appeared in Service and Regulatory Announcement F.D. No. 2, Revision 5, November 1936. POLICY: In absence of a standard of identity for prepared mustard, we consider the following definitions to be satisfactory guides for the composition of prepared mustard for purposes of enforcement of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. PREPARED MUSTARD: A paste composed of a mixture of ground mustard seed and/or mustard flour and/or mustard cake, with salt, a vinegar, and with one r without sugar and/or dextrose, spices or other condiments. In the fat-, salt-, and sugar-free solids it contains not more than 24 percent carbohydrates, not more than 12 percent crude fiber, not less than 5.6 percent nitrogen, the carbohydrate being calculated as starch. MUSTARD SEED: [snip (0.6 max mustard oil)] [http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074463.htm](http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074463.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-this-normal-american-food-labelling-marketing/741525.md?page=3)