If you saw this on the side of a scone mix, how many calories would you think was in a scone?
If you’re like me you thought, “Hey, 120 calories? That’s not bad.”
If you were buoyed by the reasonable calorie count, how long would it take you to realize this imagined scone would also have no fat? And yet, if you flip the box over, the instructions clearly call for butter, milk and an egg. All of which have varying degrees of lipids.
Is it just me or do you find the nutritional information misleading? If the manufacturer knows what the customer is going to add to the mix — and they even specify whole milk – shouldn’t they calculate the nutritional data based on the final product? Unlike breakfast cereal, no one is going to eat this straight from the box. And yet cereal companies provide two sets of numbers for their flakes – naked cereal AND a bowl soggy with 1/2 cup of 2% milk. Why can’t the scone makers do this math?
What further irks me is they look all above-board and helpful when they warn you the product might have come into contact with soy, milk, eggs, nuts, dairy and stray cats. But they can’t give you the calorie count of a scone prepared as per their own instructions?
Now, before you ask why I made scones from a mix, they were a very thoughtful gift from a friend. They had no artificial flavours or colours and were actually quite tasty. Once I added butter, milk and an egg.
Did you see the catch right away or, like me, were you momentarily fooled into thinking these were low-cal treats? Is half-baked (pun intended) nutritional information helpful or harmful? Or are there other sneaky label tricks that bug you more?
Grumble away. For your trouble, here’s my own scone recipe. I have no calorie count for any aspect of the recipe, but be warned. With a 1/2 cup of butter, they’re not low-cal.
![[Get Copyright Permissions]](http://license.icopyright.net/images/icopy-w.gif){kind=small}
Click here for copyright permissions!
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
When you don’t by a lot of food with a nutritional label (one ingredient only kind of food) you stop paying that much attention to these labels. The only time I do is when I’m comparing two brands of something. And then I usually try to compare the sugar and salt content.
BTW, this box is just dumb by basing it on the mix alone. I read that first and thought, hmmm?
[Reply]
I wonder if the requirement for nutritional information on packaging differs between the US and Canada? A quick look through my own cabinet shows everything to have a ‘dry mix’ and a ‘completed as directed’ column. I see your scones are US labelled. Hmm. Absolutely this label is misleading. Intentional…? One must wonder.
My pet peeve with labeling is in the serving sizes. That’s where I need to be very careful! My version of a serving isn’t always the same as their version. Who every eats a ’single serving’ of Kraft Dinner?
Jill
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Good point, Jill. My friend bought this when she was on vacation in the US.
I agree on serving size. Usually the serving is unrealistically small. Ironically, this scone mix made 4 scones that were the size of luncheon plates — at least 6 “normal” scones in my books.
[Reply]
I find that label useless rather than maddening. The information provided doesn’t mislead so much as fall short of the spirit in which such labels are intended — to provide information of value to the consumer.
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Agreed. It was definitely more “letter of the law” than spirit.
[Reply]
Thanks for uncovering yet another misleading labeling tactic.
Here’s another one: Food companies know that consumers always look to see if HFCS and sugar are among the top few ingredients. So instead they include *several* kinds of sugar in the ingredients list (dextrose, beet sugar, molasses, etc). None of the ingredients is significant enough to be listed in the top three or four, but in aggregate the “food” has as much or more sugar than ever. I’m seeing this technique increasingly used with breakfast cereals lately.
Dan
Casual Kitchen
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:50 PM
Good point, Dan. I usually check total carbs, which usually breaks out the sugar content. That’s one reason I now make my own breakfast granola. I know what goes into it — maple syrup or honey.
I’m not totally against sugar, as you can tell from the extensive list of desserts in my recipe index, but I want to eat them as treats, not as part of my main meal.
[Reply]
LOL at “stray cats!” I am totally with you on this – mixes… or any other product that the manufacturer knows you will be adding ingredients to… should have two sets of Nutrition Facts.
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 13th, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Thanks for weighing in. I’m rarely buy mixes and wondered if I was out of the loop on this topic. Seems most agree with me, so at least I have company with my grumbling.
[Reply]
That is super sneaky. Yep, nothing sounds better than 4 T of dry scone mix about now.
[Reply]
Someone is going to call me a party pooper…
It ties into regulation 21 CFR 101.9(b)(5)(v) of the US Food and Drug Administration, or in Canada under 5.6.3 Dual Format – Foods Requiring Preparation [B.01.406(5), B.01.456]. I hate to be sympathetic with the law makers, but “as prepared” nutrient content for a multiple-added-component mix is extremely variable, which is a primary reason many manufacturers avoid the “as prepared” column. Whole milk versus skim, large egg versus extra large? What about cheese? What kind? Poppy seeds? Fresh lemon zest and currants? The two column “as prepared” listing on the Nutrition Facts Panel is voluntary for products such as this. They’d have to find space for a double wide panel anyways.
All the more reason to make your own from scratch. You’ll have much more confidence in what you are getting. Mind you, if you want your nutritional information per serving, you’ll likely be calculating it yourself.
References http://tinyurl.com/dxl998 http://tinyurl.com/ybs8jqf and
http://tinyurl.com/yjjkkgd
From your friendly neighbourhood policy maker! Cheers!
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Thanks, Amy. For some reason, your comment got flagged as “spam” and I missed it.
Thanks for the information. I do feel that in this case, the “as prepared” would be possible since they specified whole milk. But you’re right. They could argue about egg size, currents, poppy seeds…
“All the more reason to make your own from scratch” — Agreed, although my own recipe would have as much butter!
[Reply]
One of the things I’ve learned in my life as a food consultant is that if no one complains about misleading labels or wayward claims, they often go un corrected for a long time. The best thing a person can do when they find a misleading label is to write a letter to the CFIA and then cc the manufacturer.
Here’s a link to more info:
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/fssa/labeti/labetie.shtml
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Great suggestion, Dana. This was made in the US,but I’ll keep this in mind for Canadian packages. Thanks so much for the link.
The squeaky wheel gets the oil.
[Reply]
Hello Ms Christie
I just happened to read your blog through the Cuisine Canada Scene site.
Is the nutrition facts label misleading? Is it legal?
Misleading maybe, misunderstood yes, legal yes. The regulations actually require the nutrition facts to be on the “as packaged” not on the finished prepared product. The “as prepared” information is voluntary. There is a form of the nutrition facts that allows for the “as packaged” and “as prepared” information. The “as prepared” imformation is voluntary.
Part of the problem is that the consumer has not been provided insufficient information/ education (from government, health professional, etc) to understand the nutrition facts.
If the “as prepared” information were included based on the recipe using unsalted butter the nutrition facts would have the following information
Serving size 80g
Calories 270
Fat 38% Daily Value (DV)
Saturated Trans 88 %DV
Cholesterol 115mg (not incuded in nutrition facts format)
Sodium 11 % DV
Carbohydrates 3% DV
Fibre 0% DV
Vitamin A 25% DV
Vitamin C 0%DV
Calcium 6% DV
Iron 4%DV
I assist food companies with developing their nutrition facts panels. Some provide the “as packaged” and “as prepared” information, some do not. Many food companies and consumers find the nutrition facts panels with both the “as packaged” and “as prepared” very confusing. Some food companies (such as this one) do not want to provided the “as prepared” information because it negatively impacts on their product. What happens if the consumer does not follow the recipe as provided? If unsalted butter,margarine, or skim milk is used the nutrition information will change significantly.
In the case of cereals including the information with added milk, the added milk reflects positvely on their product increasing protein, vitamins and minerals.
CFIA would not consider this product to be mislabelled, it meets the requirements of the regulations.
NJR
[Reply]
Charmian Christie Reply:
November 17th, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Thanks so much for the detailed comment, Nancy. Very interesting information. Cereals add the “with milk” information to look better while the scone mixes omits it because it looks worse. Makes sense to me — although it’s still frustrating as a consumer.
I really appreciate you taking the time to leave such a detailed answer.
[Reply]