Aidan:
Hello. And welcome to episode 235 of the Ideal Nutrition podcast. My name is Aidan Muir, and I’m here with my co-host, Torwen Eerkens. And today we’re talking about how accurate calories are on food labels. We’ll probably extend that to other components of food as well. I don’t know if calories makes it more clickbaity.
That’s part of why I’ve gone with that. Anyway, moving on. The reason I wanted to go down this route was editing a friend’s book they are going to release. They just wanted another pair of eyes to ensure everything was accurate. They made some claims about label accuracy. I think they used a very specific number. They wanted to fact check that. I started digging into it.
I’ve looked into this many times over the years. However, as I dug into label accuracy, I thought this would be good podcast content. So that’s why we’re here today.
Torwen:
Let’s talk about calories, or energy, and how labels calculate them. Most products use the Atwater system. And this assigns average values to protein, fat, and carbs. Then companies calculate energy based on the ratio in a product. Actual values can vary. Processing and composition can change results. Is the listed energy correct? Are the ingredient amounts actually the percentages you consume?
Aidan:
Yeah, and even on those Atwater factors, this is the smallest part of discrepancies. Let’s say protein. We call it an average of four calories per gram. We simplify down to that. It actually does depend on the amino acid profile. So, theoretically, branched chain amino acids are closer to five calories per gram. By definition, other combinations must be closer to three. Therefore, some discrepancy will always exist.
Most companies use software or spreadsheets. For example, they might use FoodWorks. They input ingredient nutrition profiles and recipe amounts. Then they make it all come out as the label values.
Torwen:
So labels are calculated rather than directly measured.
Aidan:
Direct measurement is possible. Sometimes bigger companies will do it. Often they do it to verify a claim. I don’t know if this company has used it. I’ll use this as an example anyway. For example, Rokeby with their protein smoothies. I’d assume they tested the 30-gram claim. They use a hyperfiltration process to make it.
You can’t just put hyperfiltered milk into software to get that 30-gram number. I could be wrong on that example. However, in many cases with specific claims, they test to ensure it meets the claim.
Torwen:
Let’s talk about labelling and the rules in Australia versus other countries. In Australia, nutrition labelling has been mandatory since 2002. We also have strict packaging rules. Those rules cover allergens and country of origin. However, there is some flexibility with labelling and calorie numbers.
Aidan:
This came up while I edited that book. I’ve seen social media talk about a 20% guideline. People say it can be 20% either side. Australia doesn’t have a law on that. Instead, there are unofficial guides that discuss it.
Those guides relate to calories and macros. They also relate to meeting or exceeding vitamin and mineral claims. With vitamins and minerals, it focuses on not going far below. But this gets out of my scope. I don’t work in regulation. However, it seems there’s no actual cutoff point. Still, if you were very far off, you could get a penalty. It’s hard to say where the line is.
Torwen:
In terms of research, a 2006 Australian study looked at 350 samples across 70 products. They found significant discrepancies. They compared actual products with label values. The range ran from negative 13% to positive 61% for individual components. That’s massive.
Aidan:
Yeah. And this also relates to a claim I saw while editing. The claim said calories can be off by up to 25%. If you say “up to,” you imply none exceed that. Yet plenty of cases do exceed that. The study also includes variables that can skew results. For example, it looked at micronutrients too. They gave examples like sodium.
A product might have a tiny amount of sodium. Then sodium could be off by more than 20%. Even with that, only 16% of the 70 products complied with a 20% leeway guideline. If that became law, only 16% would pass. If you exclude irrelevant small numbers, it improves a little. I don’t have the numbers in front of me. However, about 20% of products would comply.
Torwen:
That’s not a lot. It would be low compliance under a strict rule in Australia.
Aidan:
Do you have numbers for other countries?
Torwen:
I actually don’t.
Aidan:
I do have a few numbers though. I got curious because I’ve consumed a lot of international content on this. Other countries often have clearer guidelines. Not all of them do. A lot are technically not law. However, they do have clear cutoffs. Canada and the European Union apparently have a 20% either side range.
It’s listed in writing pretty clearly. For vitamins and minerals, their ranges run minus 20% through to plus 50%. Once again, it focuses on not being noticeably under. It’s okay if you’re a little bit over. In America, they say calories and macros shouldn’t exceed 120% of the declared value. So, that’s interesting. They’re more lenient with going under than going over. You can see it is complicated. It can also be hard for products to comply.
Torwen:
Does it change how we track? Does it change how you interpret labels? Does it change how you choose products? That’s the question. What are your thoughts, Aidan?
Aidan:
So, I’ve seen people use this as evidence to not track at all. And people also use it as evidence that calories don’t matter. I personally think that is silly. Those are my two cents. Take from that what you will. I think it’s silly because I’m okay with accepting some discrepancy. You can do things to get around this.
Typically, fewer ingredients mean more accuracy. You can also accept that some ingredients skew numbers more. For example, a product might contain meat. That meat could have more water per 100 grams. Another cut could have higher fat content. Fruit can vary too. The same fruit can have slightly higher sugar. There are ways to make estimates more accurate. However, I use this to argue for practice over label numbers.
I joked off-air to Torwen. It frustrates me when someone insists they track exactly 2000 calories per day. They also claim maintenance is exactly 2500. Then they say they should lose weight, but they’re not. They choose not to change intake. We can’t have that degree of confidence. Because ne reason is tracking accuracy. Even then, discrepancy still exists. So why not adjust based on what happens?
Torwen:
This is something I talk about with my clients all the time. Numbers are only part of the picture. We look at what is happening. Then we can adjust based on that. I think it makes sense. I think for people tracking closely, consider a 20% variance. You might need to drop calories a bit lower.
Alternatively, you might need to increase them a bit more. Also, if you eat mostly whole foods, fewer products have greater variance. So it makes sense to do that.
Aidan:
Yeah, and here’s an extreme thought experiment. Say you want to ignore calories completely. If you go noticeably under your appropriate range, you’ll feel terrible. You’ll probably feel hungry and fatigued. If you go noticeably over, your body weight will go up over time. That can happen even if you don’t care about calories.
Most people don’t want that beyond a certain point. I think at minimum, have some awareness of calories. Also, remember these discrepancies exist. That’s a good idea.
Torwen:
Thank you for tuning in. This is episode 235 of the Ideal Nutrition Podcast. I know we say this most weeks. However, we really do appreciate positive reviews. If you enjoy this episode, we’d love you to leave one. Thank you.