Food Fridays: Misleading People with Percentages
I enjoy Cape Cod Potato Chips, so one day I decided to try the reduced fat variety. I was pleasantly surprised that they tasted much like the regular. They have a nice crunch and are worthy to be eaten along with (or even inside) a sandwich. I try to avoid chips, but I figure these are a good option when I indulge.
My enjoyment is only curbed by the misleading name.
The company calls its reduced fat variety by a special name. It’s not just reduced fat, it’s 40% reduced fat.
But I was skeptical of how they could remove that much fat. It made me investigate more.
Here are the nutrition facts from the Cape Cod Potato Chips website.
The reduced fat have 6 grams of fat versus 8 in the regular. By my account, that is a reduction of 2 grams from 8, which is only a mere 25% reduction. What gives?
Here is their logic on the 40% reduced fat. The package indicates that 6 grams of fat is 40% less than 10 grams, which is what the national leading brand has. Oh, so that’s the game: increase the percentage base to make the reduction sound better.
Also notice how the calories are only reduced by 13%, making the products similar from a weight loss perspective. But again, 40% reduced is better than 13%!
I was wondering about labeling facts, so I dug up the definition of reduced fat via the FDA:
reduced: when describing fat, sodium or calorie content, the food must have at least 25 percent less of these nutrients than the “regular” version.
Technically, Cape Cod Reduced Fat chips meet the definition, as they are 25% reduced from the “regular.” Why are they allowed to call it 40%?
Whatever the case may be, I chalk this example as the nutrition labeling equivalent of inflated price savings. I think the solution is to ignore percentages entirely, just as I try to ignore savings.
7 Responses to “Food Fridays: Misleading People with Percentages”
@Presh - Well, yea, ignoring reductions is really the way to go here…would you eat 40% reduced fat bacon and consider it a healthy option:
http://www.nutrientfacts.com/searchfood.exe?var=5&word=Bacon+Regular+Broiled&Multiplier=1&Units=Ounces&x=34&y=13
So 40% off 15g per ounce still leaves you with a whopping 9grams of fat…
By RohoMech on Feb 1, 2008
@RohoMech: That’s true. It’s worth noting that the 40% reduced fat chips do not qualify as either “low-fat” (3 g or less per serving) or “light” one-third fewer calories or half the fat of the regular version. Those are probably more important labels, but I’m sure there’s probably a way to misuse them too.
By Presh Talwalkar on Feb 1, 2008
This is interesting. Have you written a book - like the Tim Harford ones ‘Logic of Life’ etc?
By tom french on Jul 2, 2008
Tom French: That’s quite the inspirational comment as I aspire to do what Harford has done. Thanks! You remind me to get back to my draft for an ebook…
By Presh Talwalkar on Jul 3, 2008
The serving sizes are a different number of chips, because as the fat is reduced the mass of each chip is also reduced. The reduced fat version has 23 chips per 1 ounce serving, with 6 grams of fat per serving, so each chip has 0.26 grams of fat. The regular version has 19 chips per 1 ounce serving, with 8 grams of fat per serving, so each chip has 0.42 grams of fat. This is about a 40% reduction, and I bet this is actually how they are calculating it.
By Ranma Saotome on Aug 26, 2008
Ranma Saotome:
Wow, this is fascinating–are you a lawyer? It is amazing how the numbers work out to 40 percent on a per-chip basis. However, I believe this is a coincidence because the 40 percent reduced package indicates the comparison was made as a reduction to 6 grams compared to the national average of 10 grams.
To add another perspective, nutrition people usually care about fat per calories. The regular is 47 percent fat compared to the reduced fat of 38 percent. This is a 17 percent reduction.
But thanks for sharing. I will keep an eye out for this issue for other nutrition labels too!
By Presh Talwalkar on Aug 27, 2008
No, not a lawyer, just an obsessive compulsive math geek
By Ranma Saotome on Aug 27, 2008