Your kingdom must have very conventional products. I much prefer absolute percentages, even if i have to deal with statements about asbestos.
What conventional version? Whose? If it’s that company’s, I have to check what that product’s absolute numbers are, so I can then do the 5% math. But perhaps it’s 95% less than the highest-fat similar product out there, so the net result, in absolute terms, is pretty bad anyway.
You make the mistake of thinking the number is there to give you information. It is there to try and trick you. The fact that it’s true is just a defense so they won’t get in trouble.
The thing is, having only 5% fat is a heck of a lot, and thus using the word “fat-free” beside it is misleading.
No. Fat free is a qualitative description, not a quantitative one; something is either free of fat or it isn’t. If I lost a finger, that wouldn’t make me 10% fingerless. So who the hell really knows what they mean when they say 95% fat free? If I was actually concerned about my fat consumption, I would pay no attention to such nonsensical descriptions and read the nutritional content.
snailboy, you make an excellent point.
If the actually labeled the product as “only 5% fat” that should be fine though, right? I get your point about fat-free not being something that can have degrees.
Perhaps they should print, “95% of the weight of this product comes from ingredients other than fat!”
Indeed, people go into conniptions over the “high” fat content of whole milk, but it could legitimately be advertised as “over 96% fat free!”. In fact, why doesn’t anybody do that? (Presumably because milk labelling has all sorts of funny regulations.)
I can’t think of any accurate and appealing way for them to describe it, other than “low fat” (and that’s assuming it actually is lower than normal and they’re not just trying to trick you). In the case where they actually remove some fat, they could say “80% reduced fat”.
Indeed. Reduced-fat milk has traditionally been labeled with the literal actual percentage of milkfat (e.g., “2%”). So they’ve cut past the marketing mathematics (“98% fat free!”) and just come out and told us “This milk is 2 percent milkfat by weight”. Refreshing. I wonder if that is the outcome of regulation, or just longstanding habit.
At least it’s not “Now 95% less asbestos!”.
I suspect there are enough moron consumers that approach might work.
I just noticed the hummus I am eating for lunch (chickpeas, tahini, and soybean oil) is proudly “GLUTEN FREE” so I guess I should be thankful they stopped adding flour to it.
Whole milk does however have nearly twice as many calories as skim milk, 150 vs 80; even 1% milk has 25% more calories and 2% (50% more calories) is just over the recommended limit for calories from fat (not that the fat appears to be bad, some research links skim milk to weight gain and vice-versa, but probably due to a satiating effect; if I drank whole instead of 1% but kept the amount the same, I’d consume more calories).