Confusing nutrition labels - sugar > carbs?

(Old Baconian) #22

Again, the carbohydrate number is net carbohydrates, not total.


I see. I didn’t think our labels showed net?

(Old Baconian) #24

Well, the government’s Web page on how to read a nutrition label does say the following:

The amount of carbohydrates in the Nutrition Facts table includes fibre, starch and sugars. Fibre and sugars must be listed under carbohydrates. Starch is optional, which means that a food manufacturer can list it if they want to.

You might send a copy of that image to Health Canada and see what they say about it.

(Old Baconian) #25

Interesting. I notice that U.S. labels say “total carbohydrate,” which includes all forms of carbohydrate, including fibre.

The images above say simply “carbohydrate,” as does the Interactive nutrition facts table on the Health Canada site. This may well be significant.

(Laurie) #26

In Canada it’s total carbohydrate, but the word total is not used. Sometimes the total is more than the sum of fibre + sugars. But it should never be less than fibre + sugars.

I don’t have many labeled products around, but I found some examples:

10 g Carbohydrate
0 g Fibre
9 g Sugars

Cocoa powder:
3 g Carbohydrate
2 g Fibre
0 g Sugars

Pace’s Picante Sauce:
4 g Carbohydrate
1 g Fibre
3 g Sugars

(Old Baconian) #27

That makes it seem, then, that the label in the photo is possibly a European one, except that European regulations require a list per 100 g of product, regardless of whether or not there is also a list per serving.

In the U.S. all imported products are still required to conform to U.S. labeling requirements, even if they are properly labeled for the country of origin. Sometimes this requires new packaging, other times a sticker is used.