I really feel like I should already know this but I am having a hard time understanding something. I was reading the label on this package of small, low-carb wraps and it prominently displayed “95% fat free” on the back of the package. But upon reading the nutrition facts, I see that the wraps have 50 calories apiece with 2 grams of fat per (or about 18 calories from fat per wrap). So with a product which contains a total of only 50 calories and nearly 40% of those calories coming from fat, how can it claim to be 95% fat free?
Take 9 liters of water, add 1 liter of pure lard. Your solution is 10% fat (90% fat free!), but 100% of the calories are from fat.
You’re comparing grams to calories, I think is the mistake. Considering the wraps may be 40 grams in weight, and 2 grams of that is fat, that’s 5% fat.
If that wasn’t clear it means it is 5% fat, marketing *#::@+"
Capt
Stuff that advertises how little fat it has is generally quite fatty. You don’t normally see a big fuss made about the fat content of lettuce for example.
Nitpick: that would at best be an emulsion, not a solution.
Or a McDonald’s shake.
I really do not see how this is marketing BS or even confusing at all. If it says that the product is 95% not fat, it is only logical that it is 5% fat. What else could it be? It seems pretty clear and accurate.
It doesn’t mean that you only pay for 5% of the fat? 
It does sway in that direction, but there are plenty of products that would normally be low in fat that are sold that way also. Same with cholesterol.
The correct literal reading of 95% fat free, is of course that the product is anything up to 5% fat. However a somewhat less careful reading might interpret it to mean that 95% of the fat of a conventional version has been removed - so it is 95% less fat. I suspect there is a certain amount of wishful thinking on the part of the buyer here. Marketing is very good at picking up on human foibles like this.
There is one case where you do see a percentage reduction. One standard for decaffeinated coffee is a 97% reduction of caffeine - the final coffee isn’t 3% caffeine. It really is 97% less caffeine. But purveyors of fat reduced foods tend not to dwell on the 30% reduction in fat content, and like to talk up the 95% fat free part. They tend to be mute on the total energy content however. So often removing fat also reduces flavour, as the lipid soluble flavours go too. So they add sugar, or other junk, to compensate.
According to the FDA:
That’s not really the answer to the OP, but interesting page nonetheless.
Thanks for the answers y’all.
And this is why, IMHO, anything other that this meaning should be considered false advertising. In my kingdom, 95% fat free will mean 95% less fat than the conventional version, with violators of the law punished by death.
Food companies, like other companies, use marketing gimmicks all the time. For example, you can get popcorn that is marketed as “whole grain” popcorn. All popcorn is whole grain by its very nature. It’s just that “whole grain” has become a health fad and things that are whole grain are supposedly better for you.
I actually see a lot of things that have no reason to have fat but are unhealthy for other reasons–especially sugar–called “Fat Free.” The “Dinosours” I treat myself to once in a while have it on the bag, when they’re just jellied sugar colour and something acidic.
It means it tastes bad.
I thought it was simply that “95% fat free” means that 5% of the overall weight is fat.
In terms of what we’re led to think it means, the fine print on the nutritional onformation label is more pertinent: calories per serving // calories from fat.
If I’m oversimplifying or just plain wrong, be nice about it, ok?
I believe that they already do have a phrase for that situation. They say “95% less fat”. 
Again, it seems ironic that people are lambasting advertisers for being honest about their product, simply because it does not mean what they want it to mean.
However, Starbucks is proud of the fact that their popcorn is 100% whole grain.