Mon, May-28-18, 06:34
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 1,898
|
|
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000
BF:
Progress: 50%
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Merpig
That’s one reason I would support the “teaspoon “ measure, at least here in the US. Most people can visualize a “teaspoon” in their heads. But I hope it would not be at the expense of eliminating grams! Grams are a much more precise measure, so ideally both should be listed.
|
Yes, I think both grams and teaspoons should be listed.
There's only one problem with that.
A great many people already ignore the nutrition label information - they just don't want to bother reading it, especially when it's not in the standard rectangle format with sections for each macro, and a line for each aspect of that macro. When the nutrition info is in tiny lettering that looks like run-on prose, along with the ingredients (standard way of fitting it all in on lots of individually sold granola bars), few people bother to read through that as it is. Add in still more about how many teaspoons that the 12 g of added sugars is actually 3 teaspoons of added sugars, and even fewer people will bother to read it.
Granted, they could eliminate a good chunk of the excess reading by eliminating the stuff about sat fat and cholesterol - but we know they're not going to do that any time soon.
|