CHOICE is looking into calorie claims on food products, such as when the packaging reads “Only xxx Calories”.
Some examples of these claims include Halo Top, Blue Ribbon Skinny Cow and Fropro, which all promote their “healthiness” using these claims. ‘Wellness’ bowls such as the range from Super Nature also use these ‘ony xxx calories’ claims.
CHOICE wants to know how widespread these claims are, and demonstrate the influence they have on consumers’ perception of the product.
The Challenge
Snap a picture of a calorie claim in the wild and post it to this thread!
The Reward
Receive the Food Champions Award badge for your profile. Top posters will be offered a chance to become a Food Champion and work with CHOICe on important food issues.
They use Calories because the number is lower - eg “Only 99 cal per serve!” sounds so much better than “415kj per serve”, but the nutrition panel has to show kj.
My gripe is with misleading or confusing “Serves” which may not be a Unit (biscuit, portion) and it is unclear how many or what fraction of the unit constitutes a serve. Oreo biscuits have 4.7serves per packet - do I break one to get the Serve? I’ll keep an eye out for products that may trumpet “99 cals” on the front and then have a ‘serve’ in a different size/kj on the nutrition panel.
This is possibly a reverse example whereby the serving size is incorrect and may give a false impression that the food is high in calories and other things (salt, fat etc)
The serving size on the nutritional label (apologies for quality by it is about the size as a postage stamp) is 150g, but the 150g packet contains approximately 15 individually wrapped servings (each about 10g).
If one reads the nutritinonal panel, one might be confused that the serving size for each individual serving is 150g and that the nutritional panel information applies to each individual wrapped serving. While these treats are tasty, eating 15 in one sitting (150g) may be a little to much to consume and the nutritional panel should have been for each wrapped serve.
Here’s an example, but they don’t trumpet the claim. Hermesetas granulated sweetener “Over 90% less calories than sugar per serve (1.5Cal vs. 16.7Cal)”.
It does stack up. A serve is 1 teaspoon. They claim volume equivalent (in sweetness) with cane sugar - cup for cup. Therefore comparing it to 1 teaspoon of granulated cane sugar. The CSIRO’s database has sugar at 16Cal per teaspoon, Hermesetas as 1Cal (rounded to nearest?). The label claims 1.5Cal vs 16.7Cal = 91% CSIRO figures = 94%.
True! It is over 90% less. What’s wrong with the marketing people? - I’d be putting that on the front in big figures.
Just noticed a TV advert for TipTop Thins. End of the 5-6pm news QLD time on Ch 10, Sat 18 Nov 2023. The ad included promotion the product was just 100 calories per serve. Now that’s a very small number for those in the community more accustomed to seeing kilojoules and daily needs suggested at around 8,700 kJ more or less depending?
It is possible this is a reformulation of the ‘Thins’ by Tip Top such they are all now 99 calories per serve. The Woolworths (and Coles) website is yet to catch up as they may have older formulation product still in stock. Alternatively the Woolworths (and Coles) website shows old product imagery which hasn’t been updated.
This is possibly likely the case as the packaging images on both Coles and Woollies websites are different to those on the Tip Top website. One would expect a manufacturer/Tip Top to have the latest imagery.
It does raise a question, when should sellers imagery be updated, as soon as the manufacturer updates theirs or when all held stock is sold. Or should they show both during transition which has the potential to confuse consumers to what version of products and where they might be sold.
Except dietary energy is now measured in kilo Joules and not Calories, and has been since metrification. Is George Weston Foods and TipTop being unAustralian in their choice of Calories for marketing an Aussie made product?
My take is 99 calories sounds much more appealing than 412 kJoules per serve. How many Australians can relate the relative difference?
Or should we ask whether the marketing is purposefully out to fool the consumer into thinking the product is better than it really is?
The TV marketing and latest TipTop site pack shots still promote the product using the 99 calories label. Although the nutrition panel on the back of the product correctly shows kJ per serve.
While SI units for measuring energy is kilojoules, calories are still commonly used in Australia. This is recognised on the Commonwealth Government’s health website:
In Australia, energy is measured in kilojoules. Energy can also be measured in kilocalories, or you might be more familiar with the term ‘calories’. One kilocalorie is the same amount of energy as 4.2 kilojoules.
State government websites also recognise the continued use of calories within the community.
It is s bit like TVs/tyres/car rims/some tools etc which are measured in inches or tyre gauges measuring in PSI (pounds per square inch). These non-SI units (imperial units) have remained in common use and are the measurements which are broadly better understood by the layperson.
There is little value in presenting information to consumers if most don’t understand what it means. For example, a 17" rim (imperial) would be 0.4318m (SI units). Ask any consumer what sized rims are 0.4318m are and they are likely to shrug their shoulders with a blank expression.
Staying on the subject of food if calories is what is accepted and best understood by consumers why do the nutrition tables use the SI system. Some products include calories as well as kJoules in the table. Others just kJoules. Even the national health guidelines are presented in SI units (kJ).
It’s also useful to note (2010).
Consumers have had decades to speak up if we don’t understand food energy values presented in kJoules. The fast food tribe has eaten and their word is kJoules. Possibly supersized.
P.S.
Interesting discussion re other uses of legacy measurements. For a moment consider vehicle fuel consumption. If keeping the old units because of common understanding was a credible argument. Would we not still be purchasing fuel in gallons, observing speed limits in miles per hour, and reporting fuel economy in miles per gallon? After all there is also an inversion in expressing fuel consumption in litres per 100km. In this way lesser is better while mpg it was greater is better. The correlation is not even linear.
Wow! Only (almost) 48 years ago, and it’s … not got far yet.
Can’t rush into these things, you know …
Australia did rush to metrication, relatively speaking. Full conversion of weights and measures only took 10 years, 1971-1981. Conversion to decimal currency on 14 February 1966 (I can still hear that jingle!) was officially considered to be the first step in metrication, and had gone pretty smoothly, too.
… and apparently,
Opposition to metrication was not widespread.
Those of us who’d spent years at school doing volume / area / speed etc calculations in imperial measurements, longhand, welcomed the much simpler metric system with open arms. And had welcomed conversion to decimal currency for a similar reason. Pounds, shillings, and pence calculations - .
I was certainly very happy about both decimal currency and metric conversion.
Because of government decisions by professionals/scientists. I have noticed that some labels have both, calories and kilojoules.
I used to always use SI units to describe things, but, once working with the community on many things quickly realised they can be gobbledygook.
Communications between professionals, SI units always used. Communications between professionals and laypeople, units or descriptors which are understandable to those without professional/science backgrounds are preferred. I used to take engineers out on community consultation and often had to do preparation with them on how to communicate to non-engineers. They often struggled.
Using calories isn’t wrong in marketing - which Tip Top are doing. I haven’t checked, but suspect using them instead of kilojoules on nutritional panel might not meet labelling requirements. Using both would also be okay.
Rule of thumbs also play their part, such as maximum of 2000 calories per day, are easily remembered. 8400 kilojoules per day will be foreign to many.
Like using inches or psi, there are some habits that are hard to break. And using them isn’t wrong as they are widely accepted. It also isn’t illegal to use non-SI units. Possibly if it was, criticism of Tip Top would then be valid.
But when a lot of products present both, there is no reason to change (like mpg to km/L). This is the first random product I searched and the nutritional panel is:
Given that the unit “calorie” is now widely meant to mean the “large calorie”, so 1000 calories, or a Kcal, it always looks better in food marketing against Kjoules.
So 100 ‘calories’ per serve much healther than 400+ Kjoules.
Should be equal. If you are going to put energy content on packages, then it should be Kjoule vs Kcal. The old obscelent use of calorie should be removed.
Of course food labelling is always the last place to look for any sense.
.
.
