Specifically, if a serving size (chosen by the producer) contains less than 0.5g they can round that to 0.
That’s how you can have “0g trans-fat” on the label and still see partially hydrogenated xxx oil as the third or fourth ingredient.
Buy you can’t both have less than 0.5 g of protein/carb/fat and 60 calories. At most, you could have 8.5 calories per serving in that case. I’d vote typo.
This is true but it has no bearing at all in this case.
That’s true only for trans fats. Interestingly, it states 0 grams of fats. Fish, especially tuna, contains DHA and EPA, no matter how small the serving.
No, it’s true for just about everything on a label.
Even calories. If a product has less than 5 calories per serving, it’s allowed to be labeled “non-caloric”. Diet soda is a perfect example.
To expand on this, lets look at the calorie content of the different macronutrients: fat has 9 calories per gram, while carbohydrate and protein each have 4 calories per gram. So a product could theoretically be nothing more than a small serving (1 gram or less) of flavored protein (or carbohydrate), and be allowed to be marketed as “calorie free”.
Sorry, I didn’t realize it was a pic of something you had. I thought you found a picture somewhere. Never mind!
I’m betting typo.
Note that this appears to be tuna fish packed in water, correct? Well that has around 10 grams of protein per serving, I’m looking at a can right now as I type this.
Its a typo, it is IMPOSSIBLE for the majority ingredient to be tuna fish and have no protein, simply impossible.
So knowing that is impossible we must explore other options.
Another clue: the label says 60 calories per serving, but if you add up the calories from protein, carbohydrates and fats you get at most 17.5 (if you assume the fat was rounded down from just under 1.5 grams and the protein and carbs were rounded down from just under 0.5 grams).
I’m also curious as to where the 2 grams of fiber come from. Fish contains no fiber. Could it be soluble fiber in the vegetable broth?
The label is just wrong. It could be a typo, or it could be someone putting in numbers just because there are supposed to be numbers there.
Must be homeopathic tuna.
Yeah, that’s the most worrisome thing about this IMHO.
How is that not true? Dietary fiber is usually listed under total carbohyrates.
I agree, and I can’t find any source to the contrary. Total carbs = simple sugars + complex carbs + fiber.
Fiber is a form of carbohydrates. I can’t imagine a scenario in which there is fiber and no carbs. Just seems like a badly printed label.
I agree, and I can’t find any source to the contrary. Total carbs = sugars + complex carbs + fiber.
BTW, when did the labeling change? I could swear in the 80s I remember seeing sugars and complex carbs being broken down into categories under total carbs, but now complex carbs are omitted, and you have to do a little math to figure out the amount.
It’s probably changed at least five times since then.
Well, I just hit up the USDA food analysis breakdown page for tuna, canned in water, drained and fed in 2 oz portion size, and here are the results. No carbs, which is not surprising as in general most muscle tissue has no carbs - no sugars or dietary fiber. As I remember, they do the analysis a number of ways depending on what they are looking for. <shrug> One reason Atkins/low carbers do a high mea product diet.